The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Whateverthe pros and cons, a decision has been made and the motion has fallen.

James McGovern: The hon. Gentleman says that the Bill would complete the process started by devolution. I am sure that he is aware that the Scottish National party supports his Bill because it thinks that the measure would achieveits stated aim of breaking up the United Kingdom. I know that politics makes for strange bedfellows, but is he not slightly uncomfortable with that alliance?

Angus MacNeil: I should say that there is no support for the Bill from the SNP. I would like to clarify a point: the hon. Gentleman talked about completingthe process started by devolution, but would not the completed process of devolution result in independence, and is not devolution independence for slow learners?

Jo Swinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and not favouring the Scottish National party over me, even if it does support his Bill. He talks aboutthe devolution process being completed, but surely for England the logical outcome of devolution is the devolution of powers to England, which his Bill seeks not to do. Does it not therefore sell the English people short?

Robert Walter: I thank the hon. Lady for anticipating what I will say. The English people already have428 Members of Parliament, who sit in this House, and my Bill seeks to empower them in their consideration of English matters in the House. Later, I will make the point that it is not necessary to go to the public expense of creating the structures of a separate English Parliament, as we already have a Parliament, in this House, that consists of all Members of Parliament elected by constituents in England.
	I anticipated that I would have got beyond the first couple of words of my prepared remarks by this stage, so I will plough on. As I say, it is 300 years since 1707, an important year. It was the year in which my school was founded, so it will celebrate that 300th anniversary for reasons of its own. It has done me well, and I hope that it will continue to exist.

Robert Walter: It is Warminster school. The date that we are really celebrating is the date of the Act of Union with Scotland. The Act was only part of a unification process, as the Act of Union with Wales had come into being some time before. The Union with Waleswas achieved through a series of laws passed by this
	Parliament between 1536 and 1543. Wales had been under the control of the English kings since the conquests of Edward I and had been ruled as a Principality, which meant that some of its laws were different to those in England. The second Tudor monarch, Henry VIII, was concerned that some Welsh Lords were against his split with Rome, and there was evidence to suggest that some of the martyr Lords were harbouring English criminals. To combat that, and to protect the Welsh coast from a French or Spanish invasion, Henry opted to take a firmer grip on the Principality. As I say, the Act of Union was in reality a series of laws that resulted in Wales being represented in this Parliament. Later, the 1801 Act of Union with Ireland was passed by both Irish and British Parliaments, despite much opposition.

Angus MacNeil: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that Ireland would not be so prosperous if it was still ruled from Westminster, instead of having self-government? Does he agree that independence has been beneficial to Ireland, and the loss of the Union to which he refers has been thoroughly positive?

Robert Walter: I thank you for that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will return to the Acts of Union referredto earlier; the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Northand Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) said that I had not mentioned the Act of Union, so I am mentioning several of them now. In 1801, Ireland was joined to Great Britain in a single kingdom that became known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The Dublin Parliament was abolished, and Ireland was to be represented at Westminster by 100 MPs, as well as a number of Members of the House of Lords.

Robert Walter: I had not intended the debate to develop into a lengthy discourse on the history of Ireland, or any other part of the United Kingdom, or a discussion of the whys and wherefores of the implementation of various Acts. I mentioned that the Irish Parliament
	voted for the Act of Union; the hon. Lady may have views about the status of those who sat in the Irish Parliament as early as 1801, just as many Members of the House would have views about those who sat inthis Parliament before the great Reform Act of 1832. History is history, and I have set out what happened.

Robert Walter: The hon. Gentleman is right, and his point relates to the reply that I gave to our friend representing the Scottish Nationalists, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil), who stated quite clearly that he thought that devolutionwas a process leading to independence. I do not think that independence is a natural extension of devolution. I believe that this Parliament is sovereign, and will continue to be sovereign, particularly if my Bill is enacted.

Mark Lazarowicz: We are discussing an important point that goes to the heart of the Bill. To follow upthe point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) will surely be aware of section 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998, which clearly specifies that
	"This section does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland."
	That undermines the whole point of his Bill, because it is not the case that this Parliament cannot legislate for Scotland if it so chooses.

Mark Lazarowicz: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again, and I promise not to seek to intervene, at least for some little time. It is important to understand the implications of his Bill. He suggests that the Speaker will have some discretion in the matter. Formally, of course, the Speaker has discretion, but clause 2(10) states:
	"When making a designation"
	under various subsections
	"the Speaker shall have regard to his certification as to the territorial extent of the bill".
	So the Speaker would not have a free hand in deciding whether or not to bar Scottish, Northern Ireland or
	Welsh MPs, depending on the circumstances. There is guidance, to which the Speaker would have to have regard.

Robert Walter: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. It was not my intention that during my contribution we should get into a discussion of what the outcome of the elections on 3 May will be and the consequences of that. I had anticipated that a number of Members might suggest that after my Bill was passed, a situation might arise in which the will of the English Members of Parliament in this House was different from the will of the national Government of the UK. My answer was that that might well be the case after 3 May in both Scotland and Wales.

Robert Walter: If the House will indulge me for a moment, I will make progress. I want to move from the historical perspectives to the substance of the Bill.
	The Act of Union with Scotland was a pair of Acts of Parliament passed in 1706 and 1707, which were given effect on 1 May 1707 by, respectively, the Parliament of England and the Parliament of Scotland. The Acts were the implementation of the treaty of Union that had been negotiated between the two states. The Acts created a new state, the kingdom of Great Britain, by merging the kingdom of England, which at that time included the Principality of Wales, and the kingdom of Scotland.
	It is interesting to point out that the two countries had shared a monarch since the Union of the Crowns 100 years earlier in 1603, but had retained their sovereign Parliaments. The Acts of Union dissolved both Parliaments and replaced them with a new Parliament of Great Britain based here at Westminster, which had been the former home of the English Parliament. This was referred to as the Union of Parliaments.
	The Acts of Union were the basis of the United Kingdom. The history of Ireland was that the Actof Union was substantially altered by events in the earlier part of the last century, particularly the events following the Easter rising, the creation of the Irish Free State in 1922, and the subsequent designation of the Republic of Ireland as a fully independent sovereign state in 1949.
	I shall jump history and come to the 1970s, when the Labour Government of 1974-79 started to legislate for devolution to Scotland and Wales, initially with the Scotland and Wales Bill, which was before the House in the Session of 1976-77. That was presented to the House in November 1976 and provided for a Scottish Assembly and a Welsh Assembly. Following the decision of the Commons not to approve a timetable motion on the Bill, the then Leader of the House, Michael Foot, announced in June 1977 that it was no longer practical to contemplate further progress on the Bill and it was withdrawn.
	Separate Bills for Scotland and Wales were introduced in the following Session. Although both were passed, neither came into effect as the majority in favour of devolution for Scotland was not sufficient, and there was no majority in favour of devolution for Wales when the referendums were held in March 1979. I remember participating in the Welsh referendum.In May 1979 I had the great honour and the great pleasure to challenge a former Member of the House, Mr. Neil Kinnock, for his seat of Bedwellty, and we had the strange situation where both the Labour and the Conservative candidates in that election were on the same side in the devolution referendum. There was insufficient support at that stage.
	During those debates, a constitutional anomaly which became known as the West Lothian question came to the fore. It was the anomaly whereby Members representing Scottish constituencies, and on occasion those from Welsh and Northern Irish seats, may vote on legislation that extends to England, but neither they nor Members representing English seats can vote on subjects that have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Tam Dalyell, who was then the Member for West Lothian, coined that phrase in an attempt to challenge the legislation.
	Enoch Powell, the former Conservative and latterly Ulster Unionist Member of Parliament, said at the time:
	"This is a question with which, by an iteration for which he should be praised rather than blamed, the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has identified himself".

Angus MacNeil: Is not the West Lothian questionbest answered with the West Limerick example of independence?

Russell Brown: I do not wish to halt the hon. Gentleman in his tracks, but I am seeking clarification as to whether his Bill is supported by members ofthe shadow Cabinet, who are absent from the list of sponsors.

Robert Walter: If hon. Members could restrain themselves, I am trying to answer the point raisedby the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr. Brown). The Conservative party has set up—it has been in existence for about a year now—a democracy taskforce under the very able chairmanship of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), which has charged itself with considering several matters, including the decisive matters that the House voted on earlier this week. It will address this question, but has not yet come forward with any proposals on it. I have spoken individually to members of the taskforce who were candidates in the last general election, when this was part of Conservative party policy, and it is very likely that it will be one of the methods that they would consider as a solution. As right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House know full well, the detail of Conservative party policy on several matters that are not before the House as Government business will be left until nearer the general election.

Paddy Tipping: The reason why my hon. Friends rise to press the hon. Gentleman is that we want some policy commitments from the Conservatives. It would be helpful if the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) would intervene to set out—

Russell Brown: My previous intervention was something of a fishing expedition, because I have already contacted the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell). Although this is an important Bill to him, when I asked him whether he would be attending today, he responded by e-mail that Her Majesty's Opposition would not be formally supporting the Bill, but went on to say that his party is awaiting the outcome of the work being done by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe.

Robert Walter: I thank the hon. Gentleman for providing confirmation of my original point, which is that the matter is being discussed by our democracy taskforce under the chairmanship of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe.
	Let me go back to the West Lothian question. Of course, Tam Dalyell was very much opposed to devolution. In his 1977 book, "Devolution: The End of Britain?", he said:
	"if the United Kingdom is to remain in being, then there can be no question but that the Scottish constituencies must continue to be represented at Westminster...Yet once the—
	Scottish—
	"Assembly had come into being, and was legislating for those areas that had not been reserved to the United Kingdom Government, the position of the seventy-one Scottish Westminster MPs could become awkward and invidious. Their credibility—like those of their counterparts in the Assembly—would be deeply suspect, simply because there would be so many areas of concern to their electors on which they could not pronounce."
	He examined and rejected four possible answers to the question and concluded that not one of them can be reconciled with Britain's continued existence as a unitary state. I looked at those four answers but came to a slightly different conclusion.

Nick Herbert: My hon. Friend might be interested in a practical example of the West Lothian question in relation to the situation of English hospitals, which are currently under threat of reconfiguration or downgrading. I have three such hospitals serving my constituents, all of which face proposals for downgrading or closure.Last month, when there was a vote in the Houseon the issue, 27 hon. Members representingScottish constituencies in effect voted for those reconfigurations. Had the Government's majority been lower, the downgrading of local hospitals in England could have been secured only with the votes of Scottish Members of Parliament. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is an intolerable situation for people in England who feel very strongly that they should have a say over the closure of their hospitals, but have no say over the future of hospitals in Scotland?

Alan Whitehead: To be helpful to me, would the hon. Gentleman be willing to speculate on the origin of the West Lothian question, particularly in respect of the extent to which it should justifiably be called the West Lothian question? He will recall that for a numberof years hon. Members from Northern Ireland constituencies voted on matters pertaining to the UK without the opposite being the case when the Stormont devolved Assembly was in place. They also voted, as I recall, under the terms of their alliance with the Conservative party, so why does the hon. Gentleman not think that it should be called the North Down question or the Belfast, West question instead? Would not that be a more appropriate way to describe it?

Robert Walter: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention because what happened in the case of Northern Ireland was Tam Dalyell's option three—a reduction in the representation. The hon. Gentleman may recall, although he may not have been in the House at the time, that when the original Stormont Parliament was in place, Northern Ireland representation was just 12 Members, who were effectively under-represented here. That was the sort of balance that was introduced. I believe that creating such under-representation is not the best way to proceed. That is an unfair solution, which is why I am not proposing it today. Rather, I am proposing Tam Dalyell's option four, which I am about to explain in a few moments.

John Denham: The hon. Gentleman referred earlier to the Welsh devolution campaign in which he was on the same side, the "no" side, as the then leader of the Labour party. If he is so concerned about those issues, can I ask him why he does not simply propose to reverse the devolution legislation introduced by this Government?

Robert Walter: Of course I am prepared to admit that the view that I expressed at that time was probablynot the correct one. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman's former colleague Lord Kinnock might well share that view. I was right in saying at that time that the exercise would be a lot more expensive than the Government of the day were suggesting—and it has proved to be a much more expensive exercise for the people of Wales and therefore for the taxpayers of the United Kingdom.
	Let me move on and deal briefly with the position in Northern Ireland, which is critical. We may well have a situation by 26 March whereby a Northern Ireland Executive will be established with a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister from different sides of the political divide in the Province. If that is the case, everyone will welcome it and Northern Ireland will then be in a similar position to Scotland. It will be somewhat more limited because of the recent history of Northern Ireland and some of the matters that will be devolved, but none the less it will be a similar situation.
	The situation in Wales, however, is slightly different, but it is certainly allowed for in my Bill. The Welsh Assembly has much more limited powers: it does not have powers in respect of primary legislation, though it has some for secondary legislation in the areas falling within its competence.

Russell Brown: The hon. Gentleman is a splendid sport. I disagree with his comments about the Greater London authority. All hon. Members probably use public transport that is provided through the Greater London authority, which is therefore vital to us all. Yet, strictly speaking, the Pandora's box of a Bill means that London Members should have no say on transport issues.

Robert Walter: No, the Bill does not mean that. As I said in answer to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), I regard the Greater London assembly and the powers of the Mayor of London as local government, not devolved government in the sense of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Robert Walter: London's position in the world is due to its financial services industry and the power of the City of London as the world's pre-eminent financial services market. That is a matter for the Treasury, which is not devolved to the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly. It is a United Kingdom matter, which does not arise in the debate.
	There are three, possibly four, solutions. The fourth solution is to do nothing—it is obvious that several hon. Members feel that that is the right way to proceed. The first solution, which several people have proposed, is to create a separate English Parliament, thus balancing the powers between an English Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, a possible Welsh Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly. I do not believe that we should follow that route.

Robert Walter: I do not wish to anticipate the outcome of my party's democracy taskforce. If it proposedan English Parliament, which would be a major constitutional change, I suspect that it would also propose a referendum on that. However, I fear that I anticipate too much, because I suspect that that is not the way it will go.

Robert Walter: That was an interesting intervention. There is a genuine sense of injustice among my constituents. They feel that we should do something to tackle the matter. That is why I am promoting the Bill and attempting to run through the options.
	An English Parliament presupposes a form of separate English Government, with an English First Minister, English Ministries and so on. I contend that we have already have a Parliament that is capable of legislating for England on matters that have been devolved to Scotland and Wales. That is this Parliament, but limited to Members of Parliament who represent the constituencies that are affected by legislation. It is clear from the current constitutional settlement that most of that legislation would reflect matters that relate to England and Wales. The Bill therefore treats England and Wales as one for primary legislation. Creating a separate English Parliament is an expensive and unnecessary answer when we already have 428 English Members of Parliament who arepaid to sit here and represent the interests of their constituents.

Jo Swinson: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the logical extension of his proposal is to createan English Parliament within this Parliament? That would mean a de facto English Government and English Ministries. The problems that he outlines would therefore apply if his Bill were passed.

Robert Walter: There would be only one set of salaries, buildings and civil servants. We already have the ability to govern England from an existing Parliament by simply creating a mechanism whereby Mr. Speaker designates the legislation and matters that relate to England—or England and Wales—rather than the whole of the United Kingdom.
	The second solution is to reduce the number of Members of Parliament who are elected for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is the old Stormont solution of having only a limited number of Members of Parliament, as if that somehow provided a democratic balance. As has been pointed out, that sort of democratic balance is not appropriate. It doesnot matter whether there are 20, 50 or 70 Scottish Members, the point is that they should not participate in matters that do not relate to Scotland. Simply reducing the number would not, therefore, solve the problem.

Robert Walter: I shall not go into any more detailon that, because I have taken up rather a lot of the House's time this morning, although I suspect that most of it has been taken up by interventions rather than my contribution.
	Before concluding, I should like to discuss the provisions in the Bill to exclude a reduction in the number of Members of Parliament, because that is not the way forward. The title of my Bill is House of Commons (Participation) Bill. As I said in answer to an earlier intervention, I rather liked "Act of Union (Amendment) Bill", but the Clerks told me that that was an unacceptable title, so we are stuck with a rather innocuous title. My Bill follows a similar Bill that was introduced in the House of Lords in the last Session by the noble Lord Baker which sought to do very much the same as what I propose. However, a number of anomalies were identified in his Bill. Therefore, the basic provisions of my Bill are that, in respect of primary legislation, the Speaker may designate whether it should be considered by
	"all members returned for constituencies in England and Wales"—
	thus taking account of the fact that Wales does not have primary legislative powers—
	"all members returned for constituencies in Scotland...all members returned for constituencies in Northern Ireland",
	or any combination of those.
	The simple fact of the matter is that we would never—although it was suggested that we might—have legislation that referred solely to Scotland. It is unlikely that we shall have much legislation in the future that refers exclusively to Northern Ireland. However, we may have some, and it is dealt with in clause 4, which is entitled "Special provision relating to Northern Ireland legislation", to which I shall turn in a moment.
	On secondary legislation, I have suggested that the Speaker can designate a statutory instrument to be considered by
	"all members...all members returned for constituencies in England and Wales",
	or
	"all members returned for constituencies in England."
	There could be a combination of those, too, but the obvious combination is all hon. Members.

John Denham: I am grateful to the hon. Member.He is talking about the important issue of which legislation would be designated for decision. The Higher Education Act 2004, which introduced tuition fees, is often held up as an example of where illegitimate voting took place on an English matter. However, the former Member for West Lothian voted on that legislation, on the grounds that it had implications for Scottish higher education. Under the hon. Gentleman's Bill, how does he propose that the Speaker would be able to determine, quite as simplyas he suggests, which Bill had which territorial application?

Robert Walter: As I understand the current situation, it is incumbent on the Clerks of the House to determine the territorial extent of the Bills that are brought before them. They would advise the Speaker accordingly.If the legislation that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned had had implications for Scotland because its territorial extent included Scotland, it would have been considered by Scottish hon. Members. However,I suspect that the implications were secondary implications, in that the primary purpose of that Bill did not relate to Scotland. It would therefore have been perfectly appropriate for it to have been deliberated on by Members of Parliament for the constituencies that it did relate to, which in that case—if I recall correctly—were in England and Wales.
	Clause 4, "Special provision relating to Northern Ireland legislation", is important. It was pointed out to me when I was putting together the provisions of my Bill that Lord Baker's Bill in the other place wouldhave put the House at loggerheads with the various agreements that have been made among all the parties trying to find peace in Northern Ireland. Under his Bill, the only people who could consider Northern Ireland legislation while no Assembly was sitting at Stormont would be the Members of Parliament elected for Northern Ireland constituencies.
	It does not take a brilliant mathematician to work out that if the Sinn Fein Members did not take their seats, Northern Ireland would be governed by the Democratic Unionist party, which would of coursebe contrary to the St. Andrew's agreement, the Good Friday agreement and all the other agreements before them that have sought power sharing in Northern Ireland. I have therefore created a special provision that says that if legislation that solely relates to Northern Ireland is considered by the House in future, it should be considered as if it were a United Kingdom matter, and therefore by all hon. Members. That is in the spirit of all those agreements on power sharing among the various parties, which I believe are leading to a peaceful settlement in Northern Ireland.
	In conclusion, my Bill has arisen out of a sense of frustration on the part of my constituents, and a feeling of unfairness and injustice on the part of people who live in England. My Bill would complete the devolution settlement process without the creation of an English Parliament, because at the end of the day, 428 English Members of Parliament are more than capable of deliberating on matters that relate to England.

John Denham: The other songs, which refer less than flatteringly to other south coast football teams, are probably best not repeated in the Chamber.
	The reason that the debate is worth having and should not just be a rerun of the debates of the previous 20, 30 or 150 years about home rule, devolution and so on, is that there is a sense—although not of tidal wave proportions—that the big constitutional debates about devolution to Scotland and Wales and the developments in Northern Ireland have not included discussion of government for England. That issue strikes a chord with a minority of English people, and it is therefore important that we consider the way forward. The Bill will not be the way forward, but the debate about how we move forward is important.
	Constitutional change in the United Kingdom is a long drawn-out process. That is fundamental to the nature of our constitution, which brings together nations of such different sizes, economic strength and political cultures. There is no perfect constitution for the United Kingdom. Constitutional change is more a matter of recognising anomalies and rearranging those from time to time according to the perceived needs. To show that these issues are not that new, I am grateful to Meg Russell of the Constitution Unit for drawing to my attention Disraeli's comment that the English are governed by Parliament, not by logic.

John Denham: My hon. Friend makes an important point. In a moment, I shall highlight the fact that those anomalies get greater or lesser attention in public debate according to certain political circumstances. The issue does not go up the agenda just because the constitution has produced an anomaly but because the anomaly offends the interests or perceived interests of certain groups or political parties. We need to understand that the importance of anomalies in our constitution varies over time.
	Our constitutional change proceeds bit by bit—not for us the continental or even Latin American model, in which a revolution takes place, followed by a constitutional convention, a plebiscite and then a new constitution. We adjust a bit here and there, look at what it is like, and then do the next bit. Even when we did have a revolution, no one really sat down and worked out what the constitution was going to be for about 40 or 50 years. Then it came out about right, and everybody was happy with it for a bit, except that universal suffrage took about another 200 years to be introduced. This week, after years of discussion on the composition of the House of Lords, we debated the matter for two days, voted for two hours, agreed two solutions to the problem, and spent two days trying to work out what, if anything, any of it meant. That is the British way of constitutional reform, bit by bit and incremental, and I see nothing particularly wrong with it. The Bill may not be the answer, but the debate is an important part of considering what we want to do next.
	Shortly before the 1997 election, when we were in opposition, I remember going on a trip with other Labour Members of Parliament to Brussels. The then Member for West Lothian, Tam Dalyell, was a member of that delegation, and we discussed these issues at some length. He made very much the argument to which the hon. Member for North Dorset has referred today. My response was not that there was not a West Lothian question, but that the issues raised by it were of less importance than those that devolution was seeking to overcome: the regular and persistent imposition of solely Scottish legislation on the people of Scotland by an English-dominated Parliament. I said to Tam Dalyell that the pressing problems of devolution to Scotland and Wales should be resolved, and then the other issues that he talked about would arise and further discussion would be needed to consider how best to deal with them. That is what we are now doing, so I commend the hon. Member for North Dorset on raising the matter, although I do not agree with his conclusions.

Oliver Heald: The right hon. Gentleman is known to be one of the most reasonable Labour Members, although those on the Front Bench are totally different. Shortly before the Scotland Act 1998 was passed, Lord Irvine of Lairg said that the answer to the West Lothian question was to stop asking it. Is not that the view of the Labour power politicians?

John Denham: I sincerely hope that I am not entirely to be written out of the panoply of Labour power politicians, although I do not have much power at the moment. I disagree with those of my colleagues who think that the devolution settlement was the end of constitutional debate. There is never an end of constitutional debate in a country such as ours. We have seen that this week in the discussions about the House of Lords. That will continue, and I will play my part in it.
	Given the way in which constitutional change takes place in this country, the current devolution settlement is at a fairly early stage. It is quite early to make a judgment about how the balance of power and decision making between the Scottish Parliament and the Westminster Parliament will ultimately be resolved. To give one example, I had the privilege a couple of years ago of chairing the Committee that considered the draft corporate manslaughter legislation that is due to come back to this House. In part of our report, the Committee expressed strong concern that the plan at that time was to legislate for an offence in Scotland and a similar offence in England and Wales, because of the great difficulties created for companies operating on both sides of border, for trade unions representing their members and so on. Of course, the current Bill incorporates Scotland, because the mature reflection was that a single piece of legislation that covered both legislatures was better than two separate ones.
	I am not an expert on such matters, but I understand that the Sewel motion has been used more often than many had predicted, which I think points to amaturing of the relationship between the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments. Having established the principle of the right to decide on autonomous legislation, there is also the mature and practical consideration of when it is best to do things in a devolved Parliament, and when it is best to do things through Westminster. We need to allow some time to pass before we can be clear about how that relationship will ultimately settle down.

Mark Lazarowicz: Does not my right hon. Friend's reference to the Sewel motion procedure highlight one of the practical difficulties of the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for North Dorset? Were the measure passed, a Bill might go through the House on which Scottish MPs were excluded from voting because of its provisions, but a Sewel motion might be adopted that would mean that the Bill would then apply to Scotland, even though Scottish MPs had not been involved in the process of deliberation. Would that be either fair or procedurally advantageous to anybody?

Alan Whitehead: My right hon. Friend raises an interesting point about the length of a Bill's passage through Parliament. I note that there is no suggestion that similar provisions should be applied to the other place. If a Bill is halfway through the House and provisions relating to it change, requiring different sections of people to vote or not, would there be an appeals procedure so that it is run through the House again, or would the people who have been discounted from voting previously be allowed to vote retrospectively in an extended version of the Wednesday afternoon voting to validate the vote that would have been valid had the Bill run in the way that was originally intended?

John Denham: My hon. Friend asks me to clarify the procedures, but in fairness that question is better directed at the Bill's authors. I have not got a clue how the House would be expected to respond to that situation, and with due respect, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think that the Speaker and his Clerks would find it extremely difficult to unpick those complex matters and advise the House how to vote. I shall return to that, but the logic is that we would endup with an English Parliament and there would beno relationship between the legislation of the two Parliaments, and that would be to the extreme disadvantage of the people of Scotland and of England and Wales.
	To return to my theme, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) said that the significance of anomalies in the constitution changes over time. I agreed and replied that factors shift and the reasons why anomalies become more important change. It is worth putting it on the record that the major reason why the debate is taking place is the unique political phenomenon of my political lifetime—the collapse of the Conservative and Unionist party of Great Britain, a country that once enjoyed significant representation through its Unionist colleagues in Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England. It has now become the English national Conservative party.
	In reality, the Conservative party of today aspires only to be a significant party of government in England. It does not aspire to play that role in any other part of the United Kingdom, and hence the focus on what is going on with English MPs and English votes. It is important that the House does not misunderstand what is dressed up as a constitutional issue as much more than the narrow interests of the Conservative party in England.

John Denham: If I can just make a little more progress.
	It is worth looking back at what the Conservative party, when it was the Conservative and Unionist party, used to say about these issues. The hon. Gentleman's history of the problem jumped from somewhere around the early 18th century to 1970, conveniently missing out the 1960s, when the debate was the reverse. The then Labour Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, infuriated by the participation of Northern Ireland MPs in the Bill to nationalise the steel industry, wrote:
	"We ought to make up our minds about the idea which I aired last Spring, that Northern Ireland MPs should not have the right to vote in the House of Commons on purely domestic matters affecting Great Britain, where the Stormont Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction...in relation to Northern Ireland."
	That proposal was passed to the then Attorney-General, who thought it was unworkable.
	The shadow Home Secretary, Peter Thorneycroft, responded, asking the Attorney-General to
	"make it absolutely clear that that kind of nonsense does not form any part of the government's thinking, that every Member of the House of Commons is equal with every other Member of the House of Commons, and that all of us will speak on all subjects".
	Shortly afterwards, when English Conservative MPs were being whipped to oppose the abolition of school fees in Scotland—a measure with considerable political support among the great majority of Scottish MPs—the Conservative spokesman, Michael Noble, said:
	"I do not find it an atom embarrassing to have to ask my English colleagues to come to the House this evening and vote against the clause".
	In other words, when it was in the interests of the Conservative party to take diametrically the opposite view to what is being proposed today, it had no hesitation in doing so.

Oliver Heald: What is sauce for the goose is saucefor the gander. Has the right hon. Gentleman read "The Politics of Nationalism and Devolution" by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in which he says:
	"Most of all, a revised Scotland Act could embody some form of the 'in and out' principle. Under such a principle the remaining Scottish MPs at Westminster would not be allowed to take part in the proceedings of the House when it was debating English or Welsh domestic matters. The 'in and out' principle ought to be attractive to Conservatives"
	but
	"Labour remains committed to devolution and may be expected to consider a plan along these lines".

John Denham: I have not seen that quotation and do not know whether it is in context. In any case, I think that the in-and-out proposal is unworkable, and I would say that to whoever puts it on the table.
	My point is not about having a bit of fun at the expense of the Conservative party, but to make it clear that for all political parties and all interests, the views that people take on constitutional matters have an element of party and representational interests behind them. It is better to be honest about that than to pretend that they are pure and abstract debates taking place among constitutional lawyers.

John Denham: I accept that we should have a mature debate about whether any further changes are required in our constitutional arrangements, but I do not accept that we need the Bill. Despite what the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) said, there is a minority—but a reasonably significant minority—of voters in Wales and Scotland who would like to be represented by Conservatives, albeit rather fewer than are represented in Westminster by the Conservatives at the moment. It is undoubtedly the case that one reason why we are in the current situation is the first-past-the-post electoral system for the Westminster Parliament. As the co-chair of the Labour campaign for electoral reform, sitting next to the other co-chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith, I merely make the point that it may well be that oneof the elements that should enter the equation forthe future is a change in the voting system for the Westminster Parliament. That would not resolve all the problems but it would reduce the sharp focus on the anomalies that is produced by the current system of voting.
	The proposals are not new and have been much debated, going back to the days of the Irish Home Rule discussions. There are three major obstacles to the Bill. The first—the in-and-out proposal—has been aired to some extent. It is about whether, in practice, it is possible on complex Bills, and most Bills are complex, to determine which matters should be voted on solely by English MPs and which should be voted on by the Westminster Parliament as a whole. Gladstone himself referred to this as a problem that was beyond the wit of man to solve. It is true that he ended up putting it in a Home Rule Bill because he could not think of any other way forward, but it hardly suggested that hewas entirely convinced by his own solution. The Kilbrandon report and the report of the Constitution Unit last year came to a similar conclusion. Most of us who are familiar with the workings of the House would recognise the difficulties that would arise.
	The Higher Education Act 2004 was mentioned earlier. It is true that a separate English Parliament would be able to vote on tuition fees for English universities and take no interest in whether that had a knock-on effect on higher education in Scotland, but if a single Parliament were discussing such a Bill, it would be much more difficult to say to Scottish Members of Parliament "The effects may be indirect, not primary, and you are therefore shut out." There wouldbe considerable concern throughout the House if Members who believed that legislation would affect the interests of their constituents were barred from speaking or voting on it. Everyone who has seriously considered the in-and-out system in the past has concluded that it cannot be made effective, and I think the Bill falls on that basis.
	The second issue has not yet been raised today, but it is important. Our practice is to form a Government from Members elected to the House, and that means all Members elected to the House. History shows that it could be quite common for a Government formed from the Westminster Parliament not to be able to pass legislation on matters determined to be English-only. The whole position would become constitutionally unworkable in a relatively short time. Once a Government's Bills were failing regularly, that Government would cease to be able to operate effectively on any United Kingdom scale.
	The Bill would turn out to be, inexorably, a staging post towards a separate English Parliament, which in turn would constitute a staging post towards the dissolution of the Union—which is why the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil) is nodding so enthusiastically. I happen to believe thatthe end of the Union would be very bad for all components of the Union. The Scottish Nationalist party has always perplexed me, as a political party that wishes to make a nation less important in the future than it is today. We benefit enormously in the Union from the participation of so many talented and able Scots in the government and the life of this country, and they in turn benefit from the influence that Scotland has in the Union, which it could not possibly have as an independent nation.

Mark Lazarowicz: I agree with my right hon. Friend on that point, but he also said that the Bill wouldlead inexorably to the establishment of an English Parliament, de facto. Is it not the case that the way in which the Bill would come into effect would lead to much bad feeling, tension and animosity precisely because of the chaotic way in which it would apply in practice? It would represent the worst of all worlds, even for those who support more self-government for England or for regions within it.

John Denham: It would lead to a very chaotic period. First, it would lead to numerous tensions and divisions among Members of the Westminster Parliament. Secondly, it would lead to chaotic and unstable government, because the Government formed from the Westminster Parliament would be unable to proceed with their legislative programme. Thirdly, it wouldlead to inexorable pressure for the formation of a Government for England, which in turn would lead, through other unstable processes, to an English Parliament. It would trigger a process of constitutional instability that would be highly undesirable. My hon. Friend invited me earlier to subscribe to a test: does change make things better or worse? On that test, the Bill would make things significantly worse.
	Having raised objections to the Bill, I should return to the beginning of my speech. There is, at least to some extent, a debate out there about the future governance of England and whether our current arrangements could be improved for the benefit of England and English issues. Even viewed from an English perspective, the Bill does not provide the best form of governance that England needs. There is an underlying confusion which suggests that becausea national Parliament was right for Scotland, the equivalent would be right for England. I do not believe that that is so. I do not consider that our history leads the English to require a Parliament or Assembly as an expression of national identity. Indeed, I consider that in many respects what England needs is a more devolved form of government.
	Incidentally, it must be said that one of the things that the Scottish and Welsh have done much better than the English is to develop an ethnically inclusive national identity. It is much more likely that a member of the black and ethnic minority communities in Scotland will describe himself as Scottish than that someone in England with a similar background will describe himself as English. People in England tend to jump straight to the British identity.
	There is an important point to be made about the future of English governance. I do not suggest that the hon. Member for North Dorset has fallen foul ofthis, for he has not, but we must be careful not to allow the future English identity to become a surrogate fora white English identity rather than an inclusive, multiracial, multi-ethnic identity. The other nations have done better in that respect so far; we should acknowledge that, and learn lessons from it.

John Denham: I am not sure which remarks the hon. Gentleman means, but the surveys, facts and records speak for themselves. A big debate is taking placein England about identity, both Englishness and Britishness, and we need to learn from what is happening north of the border.
	I see no great need for an English Parliament or an English Government. If we want to improve our system of government, we need government in smaller units than England. One of the advantages of smaller nations—not always, but sometimes—is that they are of a more manageable size. When my party was in opposition I worked with the current Leader of the House to produce a paper on English regional government, in which we showed that there was a substantial amount of it under the then Conservative Government, but that none of it was subject toany democratic accountability. That position has intensified over the past few years: there has been more regional government, and the accountability has not developed to match it.
	I understand, because I live in the real world, that to talk of accountable English regional government at this point in time is like describing an unhealthy cross between a dead duck and a dead horse, but I am not sure it is as dead as all that. At the grass roots of English local government, there is a healthy move to demand more devolution, power and control. It may well be that regional government will no longer take the form of elected regional assemblies, but such movements exist in city regions, even in my part ofthe country. Political parties are working together throughout south Hampshire to create a much stronger regional focus.
	There is a healthy move towards greater devolution in England, and that is where part of the futureof English governance lies—in greater internal devolution. That of itself does not affect the question of voting on legislation in Westminster, but as that trend develops—as it inevitably will in the next 20or 30 years—the demands placed on a Westminster Parliament regarding English legislation will be far more of an enabling sort, and far less of a prescriptive sort, than in the past 30 years or so.
	I am sorry to have detained the House for so long, and in summing up, I shall make one further point. There are three elements to consider in responding to the current situation, the first of which is votingreform for the Westminster Parliament. The under-representation of the Conservative party at Westminster, and of Conservative voters, is part ofthe problem. Secondly, the development of a more accountable system of local and regional government in England is closer to what is needed in terms of good governance in England. The third element is the consequences of the decisions that we took earlier this week on the House of Lords.
	Although the in-and-out question of dividing up English and Scottish legislation is insuperable for the primary legislative Chamber, which this place will remain, it is less of an issue for a revising and scrutinising Chamber, as the House of Lords will become, with its democratic mandate. If the House of Lords is wholly or largely elected in future—probably on a proportional, regional basis—it would not be offensive for English legislation, as part of the scrutiny process, to be scrutinised by Lords Members drawn from the English regions. That is worth thinking about. Because the Lords would not have the final say, the rough edges—the boundaries that determine the question whether it is it an England, a Scotland or an everyone matter—would be less important.
	That arrangement would provide a democratic focus for an English look at primarily English legislation that might prove helpful in future. Those three elements combined—voting reform for Westminster, stronger devolution within England and an imaginative use of the new House of Lords—could provide a betterway forward than the hon. Gentleman's Bill. It will doubtless be 20 or 30 years before we actually do anything about these matters, but we should keep the discussion going.

Mark Lazarowicz: I do not dispute for a minute that there may be some truth in what the hon. Gentlemanis saying, and I do not diminish the value of his argument. However, although the focus of such concern might be the current arrangements at Westminster, in many respects the root of the problem is a wider disillusionment with the political process. The answer is not to be found in the measures being proposed by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), but in other reforms of our political system—both nationally and at a local and regional level.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is right, in that there is an element of mythology. However, people see key decisions about social programmes being taken in Scotland by a Scottish Parliament that seem to provide a better arrangement than is being provided forthem by a United Kingdom Parliament in our English constituencies. That is one factor, and another is the feeling that there are occasions when Members representing Scottish seats determine matters in a way that directly contradicts the arrangements in Scotland. Let me illustrate the point with a recent example. About two weeks ago, the House dealt with the highly contentious Offender Management Bill, which put in place arrangements for the probation service in England and Wales, and in doing so it rejected the position that the Scottish Executive adopted on exactly the same matter. The Bill was passed by a narrow majority in this House, with those representingScottish constituencies—who will have exactly the arrangements that those of us promoting amendment to that Bill wanted—carrying the day. That is not an argument for the arrangements in the Bill before us—still less for an English Parliament, as I shall explain later—but we should recognise that such a situation causes disquiet.

David Heath: It certainly does. I will not speak for the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil) as he takes a different view from me on these matters.
	I support the Union—that is one difference I have with the hon. Gentleman. I believe that the Union has served this country well. What worries me is that some people—I do not include the hon. Member for North Dorset among them—might exploit a genuine concern within English constituencies, either by accident, recklessness or malicious intent, to undermine the Union. That is a real threat if we proceed along the lines of having an English Parliament, and I believe that the proposal we are discussing moves us towards the creation of an English Parliament within this United Kingdom Parliament. That concerns me.
	Why am I so against an English Parliament? If we have an English Parliament representing 80 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom and 80 per cent. of its material assets—or more if we consider the wealth of the south-east—it will inevitably becomenot only a rival to the UK Parliament but the real Government of a large part of the country. It is impossible to have a Government drawn from this Parliament and also a separate Government running 80 per cent. of the country and to believe that that will not provide for a constitutional deadlock—exactly the sort of deadlock that was described, wrongly in my opinion, in the debates that we had about the other place.
	I should add that, from the point of view of my constituency, I feel that an English Parliament would do my constituents less good than a UK Parliament. I represent a rural west country seat and more of the constituencies that share the characteristics of my seat are to be found in rural Wales and rural Scotland than would be represented in an English Parliament that would be dominated by the urban and suburban interests of the urbanised areas of England. Therefore, if I want community of interest in respect of my constituency, that is more prevalent in a UK Parliament than it would be in an English Parliament.
	Having said that I am a supporter of the Union and therefore cannot countenance an English Parliament, the second principle that governs my opposition is that Members of this Parliament are equal and must remain equal. They must not be categorised and put into some sort of national ghetto that does not allow them properly to participate in the workings of this sovereign Parliament. It worries me that that might be the effect of the proposals of the hon. Member for North Dorset.
	Thirdly, I am not convinced that we should regulate what we do in this House by statute. We shall return to that matter in the context of House of Lords reform. To what extent can we regulate the affairs of Parliament by statute, or can that be better done by code and our rules of conduct? The moment we start regulating by statute—which is the intention of the proposals—we cross an important constitutional dividing line, because if some Standing Orders are to be dealt with by statute, why should that not be thecase for all Standing Orders? At present, we have a marvellously fuzzy constitutional settlement in which very little is written down. A constituent of mine asked me recently what was the legal basis for Parliament. That is in fact quite a difficult question to answer. Is it founded on the fact that we have passed an Act?

David Heath: That is possibly true, but we had Parliaments before that event, settled by an autocratic monarch—a monarch ruling by divine right. That was the source of the original Parliament's power. Since then, we have had the Bill of Rights. That was passed by a Parliament. Did it have the legal right to do so? It is in fact impossible to answer such questions because the governance of a country ultimately depends on the agreement of the people of the country. We have a Parliament because that is what the people of this country want us to have.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman might have exercised just a little patience. I have already accepted that there is an issue. I reject the proposal before us, as I understand he intends to do—because his party has a very important constitutional working party which has yet to determine Conservative policy. We are familiar with the fact that very few policies of the new Conservative party are yet determined. We look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman's opinion on this matter. However, what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) said is that there is an issue to be addressed, and that is exactly what I have been saying today.
	I share the view of those who say that the West Lothian question is a misnomer. How Tam Dalyell managed to hijack this constitutional question and assume that it was his, other than by dint of his constant repetition of his point, is a mystery to me, because this constitutional question was, as has been said, very much a matter before the House during discussions on Irish home rule. Gladstone wrestled with it, as he did with so many problems, and despite it being beyond any human's comprehension, he, of course, found his solution. That has persisted ever since.
	To refer to a point raised earlier, it is right to ask why, in respect of Ireland both before the independence of the Irish Republic and since, it was perfectly acceptable for this House to accommodate the anomaly of having Irish Members participating and voting in debates, and yet it is not acceptable nowfor Scottish Members to do exactly the same thing.The right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen is absolutely right that there is a question here to do with a variety of anomalies. All circumstances such as those we are discussing—but particularly in the case of an economic and political Union such as that which we have when one partner is very much larger than the others and therefore is the prime mover—create anomalies.
	There is also a question to do with the political situation that creates the tensions that have been described. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that if the Conservative party did not do so lamentably poorly in Scotland and Wales, many such anomalies and associated issues would not arise, because there would be rough political parity in all parts of the United Kingdom and therefore circumstances in which it was purely the votes of Scottish Members that were instrumental in determining the result of any Division would arise less often. The Scottish people have so thoroughly rejected the Conservative party that it has often been unable to field anyone even remotely Scottish to speak for it, although it has the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell). May I say, in parentheses, that it would be a great help to this House if Scottish constituencies were not now a simple list of all the communities that lie within them, in order that we might better remember them?

David Heath: Only two communities are mentioned in my constituency name; some Scottish colleagueshave many more. The fact that the hon. Memberfor Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale hasbeen elected as a Scottish Member means that the Conservatives now have a putative shadow Secretary of State. That it appears that he has been completely rejected by his colleagues in Scotland to the extent that they have warned him off attending the Scottish party conference is neither here nor there; he speaks on behalf of the Conservative and Unionist party on matters pertaining to Scotland in this House.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is wrong and he should listen to what I am saying. That imbalance means that English Conservative Members—and, occasionally, some of my hon. Friends—who wish to oppose a Government position find that there isno resonance for that position from a Conservative element in Scotland because they are not here. They have not gained representation from the first-past-the-post system and that is the real difficulty.

Angus MacNeil: I am hearing a lot about party political point scoring, but in Scotland both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats are on around 15 per cent. in polls and are competing for fourth place in the elections in May.

David Heath: I am grateful for that guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. My anticipation over-excited me to the point that I could not forebear to respond to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar, who was so clearly out of order in his comments.
	As I was saying, the imbalance in representation is the root cause of many of the difficulties that we face. Those difficulties have already been adequately explored by the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen, with the exception that I pointed out in an intervention—London. It has an elected Mayor and an assembly, but unlike Wales—the two have comparable, but not identical powers, and the subjects of the powers differ—London is very much included. That is an extraordinary anomaly, but it might simply be that London has a different political settlement to Wales.

David Heath: We could include the trade policy in that—President Livingstone in a little kingdom of his own.
	The Bill raises important questions that we need to explore more fully and I do not rubbish the attempt by the hon. Member for North Dorset to address them. But we need to take certain action urgently, which can be done without statutory support, to address some of the issues. The most obvious anomaly is Scottish questions. Why does this House still have a period of time set aside uniquely for questions to a Secretary of State with no power on subjects that are almost universally devolved to the Scottish Parliament?

David Heath: I know what the hon. Gentleman is going to say. He is going to say that questions would be ruled out of order if the subject was entirely devolved. One need only look at the wonderful comedic interlude that used to be the five minutes of Advocate-General's questions. It would have been worth paying money to come into the Chamber to see the then Advocate-General, when she was a Member of this House—she is now Baroness Clark of Calton—explaining for five minutes why it was beyond her powers to answer any question that she was asked. It was a waste of this House's time, and Scottish questions are also a waste of time. I cannot ask west country questions. I cannot ask questions on behalf of the similar population of the west country on matters that affect us that are the responsibility of Ministers in this House. We do not have half an hour set aside for such questions, but itis set aside for questions on devolved matters to a vestigial Secretary of State, with very limited powers beyond organising cocktail parties at Dover house for other hon. Members. It is time that that anomaly was addressed.

Mark Lazarowicz: The hon. Gentleman perhaps anticipated the nature of my intervention, but the fact is that we are not allowed to ask questions on devolved matters at Scottish questions. We are rigorously controlled by the Table Office if we should choose to attempt to do so. It is still the case that a large proportion of Government expenditure in Scotland still relates to matters decided at UK level. That is why it is right to have an opportunity to raise those questions at an appropriate stage in the parliamentary procedure. The hon. Gentleman should think carefully before suggesting that Scottish questions should be abolished. I am sure that the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), who is in her place on the Bench behind the hon. Gentleman, would not agree for a start.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman should consider the fact that there is much more Government expenditure in my region, but I do not have the opportunity to ask such questions. He should also consider how many of the questions are in the form of, "What discussionshas the Secretary of State for Scotland had with the Scottish Executive about...". That is a spurious way of raising an issue that is eventually a matter for the Scottish Executive. It is an anomaly that we still have Scottish questions and a Secretary of State for Scotland. We need a single Minister who is responsible for co-ordination with the devolved Administrations and non-devolved constitutional matters, but we no longer need a Department that behaves as though it still has some sort of provincial authority over the country of Scotland, when it does not. It is a remnant of a previous dispensation.

James McGovern: The hon. Gentleman may havejust answered my question, but for the purpose of clarification, will he confirm that he thinks that the Scottish Office and the post of Secretary of State for Scotland should be abolished?

David Heath: Yes, absolutely. We should have anew Department that deals with all the devolved Administrations and the constitutional issues—

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head as if that were an extraordinary suggestion: it is not. Itis a perfectly proper one. Indeed, the Minister's Department performs some of those functions.
	Welsh questions are different, because they deal much more with issues that pertain directly toWelsh constituencies. However, I note that some of the most persistent questioners at Welsh questions are Conservative Members representing English constituencies who, for some reason, have a consuming passion for asking questions about Wales. They are like the football and rugby players who represent Wales on the basis that their grandmother was half-Welsh. Those hon. Members demonstrate that passion for Wales week in and week out at Welsh questions. That runs entirely contrary to the basic thesis presented by the hon. Member for North Dorset.

David Heath: There we are. Born in Swansea is sufficient qualification for involvement in Welsh matters, but the hon. Gentleman represents North Dorset and the last time I looked at a map North Dorset was not in Wales.
	We need to make changes in our consideration of English affairs. We have a quiescent arrangement for a Standing Committee on Regional Affairs, so why does not it meet? Why does not it exist? Why do not we have the equivalent of the Grand Committees for the various other nations? Why do not we have Grand Committees for the regions of England, properly constituted and able to hold Ministers to account? We do not, yet that would be one way of starting to address the anomaly.
	The real answer of course is a properly devolved settlement for the whole of the United Kingdom—the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen is absolutely right about that. The Government have started a constitutional reform journey with no idea of their destination. That is my main criticism of them. All constitutional reform is an evolution; it all takes time, but I want to know how the Government plan to address the fact that we have regional government in English regions of the UK that is not accountable to elected Members, either here or in the regions themselves.

David Heath: It is crucial to the principles of the Bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, if people in the English regions do not feel properly represented in Parliament and do not feel that they have the opportunities that are presented to the citizens of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to address themselves to an Assembly or a Parliament that has powers. That is the significant point. What was proposed for the north-east was merely glorified local government; it did not bring powers down from Westminster—from Whitehall—it merely agglomerated and duplicated powers from local authorities. That is why the proposal was rejected and that is why we have never properly addressed the issue.
	I speak for a region that is incapable of deciding on anything to do with regional government, because we can never satisfactorily draw the line on the map. Whenever anybody suggests that one area is in the south-west, somebody else says, "Oh no it isn't, we're the real south-west." That is inevitable when the Government office for the south-west stretches from the Isles of Scilly to Tewkesbury and Tewkesbury is nearer Scotland than Cornwall—[ Interruption.] The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) looks doubtful, but it is true—he should look at the map. To make an international comparison, the south-west would be a country the size of Belgium, which is one of our problems. Although many of us know perfectly well where we come from, our friends just down the road say that we come from somewhere else.
	I accept that there will be huge problems along the way, but only when we have a proper constitutional settlement that provides equality or parity of treatment for the people of the regions of England can we talk properly about having a federal UK Parliament. Until then, we must retain the good in what we have, which is the UK Parliament with Members elected on the same mandate and with the same powers of speaking and voting in this place. We must address by other means the anomalies that undoubtedly exist.

Paddy Tipping: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) in three respects: first, on being lucky in the ballot; secondly, on the way in which he set the tone of the debate, allowing interventions and lively and thoughtful discussion; and thirdly, on keeping up his long-standing interest in constitutional affairs.
	Several years ago, the hon. Gentleman and I worked together on the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, to which we took a constructive and consensual approach, although we did not get the measure entirely right. We need to re-focus on the Electoral Commission and although we did a lot of work on restrictions on donations, the issue of loans passed us by, which has had consequences for all the political parties. When I saw that the hon. Gentleman had produced a new constitutional Bill, I was keen to examine it in some detail. However, on this occasion, I have to depart from him. I think the Bill is wrong in principle, as I shall explain, and that it cannot work in practice. If it became law there would be major consequences for this place.
	When the Bill was published, the hon. Gentleman issued a press release. It was interesting that, as far as I can tell, it appeared not on his website but on the "Campaign for an English Parliament" website, which tells us something in itself. In that press release and in his opening remarks today, he said that the text of the Bill would be based on a Bill introduced in the House of Lords in the last Session by Lord Baker. As a philosopher, like some of my colleagues in the Chamber, I have made a textual analysis of both scripts. The texts of both Bills are basically the same; the words are almost identical. There are some differences in layout, two of which are significant, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out.
	The first difference is in clause 2(7), where Lord Baker lists four categories of Member, while the hon. Gentleman has only three. The hon. Gentleman explained that he had put together the English and Welsh categories. As he says in his press release, that is because
	"The new Bill will regard and England and Wales as one, until such time as the Welsh Assembly might acquire primary legislative powers".
	There has already been argument about what devolved settlement means. I believe that settlements will not remain static. There is a thirst in this country for more devolution, to move power and resources away from Westminster and Whitehall and closer to the people, so that we can do things differently in Nottingham and Newcastle, and Wakefield and Whitehaven can have different services. That move towards devolutionis inevitable—it is unstoppable. In the year sinceLord Baker produced his Bill there has been acknowledgement of change and the settlement for Wales has already been discussed in the House and changed. There will be more changes. No settlement is for ever.
	The second point of departure from the Baker Bill relates to clause 4. The hon. Gentleman's clause 4 is entitled "Special provision relating to Northern Ireland legislation". As the hon. Gentleman has explained, because of the political discussions in Northern Ireland, it has become clear that all the political parties cannot be represented in an Executive and therefore discussions on Northern Ireland issues ought to take place in this House. It would be wrong for the 18 Members who represent Northern Ireland, five of whom have not taken their seats, in a sense to dominate the Northern Ireland agenda. The discussion on Northern Ireland highlights the fundamental point that settlements change. If there has ever been a case in point, it is Northern Ireland, where we have seen the balance of power and the settlement change over a period of years.

Paddy Tipping: My hon. Friend makes a point that has already been talked about. The constitution is messy and it is not even. There will be inconsistencies. Part of the fundamental objection to the Bill is that it seems to want to clean up and categorise the constitution. I think that that is impossible. My hon. Friend gives an example of the way in which that would be difficult.
	While I am mentioning Northern Ireland, I want to pick up and reinforce the point that a number of hon. Members have made—that the West Lothian question is not new. The issue of home rule in Ireland and the debates at that time were a precedent for the issues that we are discussing today. As Professor Brigid Hadfield commented:
	"only those with short memories have called this the West Lothian Question."
	Before that, there was the war of independence in the United States and the issue of no taxation without representation—something that I will return to shortly—which was very live at that time. The issues have been around for many years and we should not be afraid of them. We have to acknowledge that our constitution is not clear, that it is messy, that it changes over time and that time passes very slowly, as we have seen this week in relation to the debate on the House of Lords.
	Earlier I said that I wanted to object to some of the many principles behind the Bill. I will mention eight principled objections. First, if the Bill became law, it would create a de facto English Parliament. England has 84 per cent. of the population of the UK. It provides more than 82 per cent. of the MPs and it provides 86 per cent. of the UK's GDP. The representatives from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, high quality as they are, are swamped by the number of English MPs. In a day when Labour MPs revolt, and revolt frequently and in large numbers, we are nowhere near the scale of revolt that is needed for 200 English MPs to join the MPs from the three other countries and overturn the majority in the Chamber. If we go forward on this basis, rather than enhancing the powers, the powers of people from Wales and Scotland will be brushed away. They will be overwhelmed. This will become, in fact, an English-dominated English Parliament.
	Secondly, in a week when we have spent a great deal of time discussing the House of Lords, I am concerned that we will return to the issue of having two classes of representatives—elected and unelected in the other place, and, under the Bill, MPs in this place who can speak on certain issues, but not others. The proposal, which is being actively considered by the official Opposition, is one of the many encountered in politics, as in life, which sounds superficially attractive and simple, but which, on closer examination, turns out to be incredibly complex, confusing in practice and profoundly damaging. There is not a case for a two-tier system of MPs or two classes of MPs. Most importantly, to have such a system would be fundamentally to misunderstand the role of Parliament and the MPs in it. MPs should represent the nation as a whole. Burke said that Parliament was
	"a deliberative assembly of our nation with one interest, that of the whole...You choose a member indeed, but when you have chosen him, he is not a member for Bristol, he is a member of Parliament".
	That is the point. MPs should speak for the whole nation. They should be able to pick up issues and pursue them vigorously. The notion of two different classes of MPs or two different classes of peers in another place is profoundly damaging.
	Thirdly, the premise behind English votes on English laws is fundamentally flawed. My right hon. Friendthe Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) has already talked a little about the settlement with Scotland. It is correct that, at any one time while the Scotland Act 1998 is in force, some legislative matters that for England, and to some degree Wales, would be dealt with in the Westminster Parliament, are, for Scotland, dealt with in the Scottish Parliament. But the only legal reason why the Scottish Parliament has those powers is that this Parliament has passed the relevant legislation. We have conceded the powers. The settlement is with Scotland and the Scottish people. It is possible, although unlikely, that the legislation could be reversed. Rather than losing the power, we have ceded it to Scotland. That reinforces the point that I made earlier: settlements change and will need to be revisited.
	Fourthly, and importantly—this is not an issue that we have discussed at great length today—there is the issue of the supply of money. Decisions taken in this House, whether on an English issue or anything else, will have consequences for the devolved bodies. The Scottish Parliament is dependent on the Barnett formula. Decisions taken in this place reflect back to Scotland. It is therefore important that colleagues who represent Scottish constituencies have an opportunity to discuss English matters, because of the consequential financial effects. It cannot be right that MPs representing Scottish constituencies should lose the power to discuss issues that will affect their home country financially.
	When discussing the same issue, Lord Trimble, as he now is, said that
	"expenditure of taxation is so fundamental to government that there must be equal representation for all parts of the country."—[ Official Report, 21 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 1419.]
	That must be right.
	Fifthly, behind this debate lies an issue of symmetry, which we have discussed throughout this morning's proceedings. It is not just an issue for this country and for this settlement. I shall cite an example given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in his Hansard Society lecture of July 2006. He said:
	"Nor are we alone in this. Classically federal systems like the US are, on closer examination, asymmetrical. In the US Senate the smallest 26 states, representing just 18 per cent. of the population, can command a majority over the other states, with 82 per cent. of the population."
	That situation involves no more than ours does. Good constitutional arrangements try to introduce a series of checks and balances to deal with that asymmetrical nature.
	Sixthly, as some of my hon. Friends have said, we have a history of strong government. If the Bill were introduced, I think it likely that we would reach a situation where the Government would not be able to command a majority in their own House and Parliament. That is a recipe for chaos.
	Seventhly, there is an issue relating to Ministers, and it is linked to my previous point. They should take collective responsibility and take the Government line. How could we have a situation where those from Scotland would not be able to vote in this House—or support collective responsibility—on issues of Government policy?
	Eighthly, and finally, there is the issue of the other place. We have discussed that a little, but it needs to be developed further.

James McGovern: Does my hon. Friend agree thatone of the most important powers that an elected Government have, apart from the power to bring forward legislation, is the right to control the parliamentary agenda? Given that the Bill would mean that programme motions could become the preserve of the Opposition, it would lead to the chaos to which he has referred.

Paddy Tipping: That is absolutely right. Whichever party we represent, we want a Government who can command support and can get their business done. That is not the case across Europe. My hon. Friend's example puts the matter in a nutshell.
	I come back to the question of the House of Lords. If Members of this place were not allowed to voteand speak on certain issues—if we were to becomea de facto English Parliament—would the Lords not become the Parliament of the UK? It would be where the essential, big issues covering the whole of the UK would be discussed. We have talked a lot about primacy this week, and we need to explore that issue further.

Paddy Tipping: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. This Chamber should be the primary Chamber—it elects and throws out the Government: it controls expenditure; and it can use the Parliament Act.
	I shall make a wider and different point. Let us consider what would happen if there were two classes of Members of Parliament, and certain MPs could not vote and, in particular, speak on certain issues. If there were a rival Chamber up the Corridor, where Members from across the United Kingdom, however they were elected or selected, were able to speak, there would be a case for people to say, "We are the legitimate Chamber of the United Kingdom, and you Commoners down there are a de facto Parliament for England." That is the threat. I do not say that that situation will arise, but we need to explore the issue.
	I have highlighted the points of principle that I wanted to explore, but there are three points of practice about which I am seriously worried. We have already talked about the way in which one defines the territorial extent of legislation. I do not think that that is easy. The House of Commons Library keeps a set of tables and grids on the matter. In the 2005-06 Session, Scotland was fully covered by 23 Bills and significantly covered by three, while it was affected by the minor provisions of five Bills.
	Hon. Members have pointed out that the scope and territorial extent of a Bill can change during its passage through Parliament. Lord Baker tackled that problem when he introduced his Bill in another place by saying that one could separate out bits of Bills to distinguish between the English and UK aspects. That sounds simple enough, but the very next sentence in his speech made it clear that the situation was more complex than he had indicated:
	"The Speaker can take advice from the Judicial Committeeof the Privy Council".—[ Official Report, House of Lords,10 February 2006; Vol. 678, c. 906.]
	If the Speaker was unhappy about the definition of the territorial extent, he or she could take advice from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—the Law Lords—but that hardly seems to be a quick procedure for a Parliament in which decisions are made rapidly. If there was an argument about territorial extent, the Speaker might feel that he or she needed to take advice and thus go to the Law Lords. After the Law Lords had considered the matter, they might decide that they should take evidence. It could take months for a decision to be made, which would be a recipe for inaction and chaos.

Russell Brown: Regrettably, the situation would be even more complex than that. The hon. Memberfor Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), who is not in the Chamber, is a Scottish Member with a constituency that goes right to the border.

Paddy Tipping: My hon. Friend makes his point exactly. He knows, because he is more closely associated with the issue than me, about the discussions that take place about territorial responsibility for the River Tweed, in which the same kind of considerations apply because, as Lord Baker would put it, it is hard to define the English bit and the UK bit.
	Let us consider another example. A bit of a Bill applying to the UK might have been certified as English. Troublemaking English MPs—there are lots of English MPs—could table an amendment to make that provision apply to Scotland. The Speaker would then be put in a difficult position, so the situation is not as clear-cut as the hon. Member for North Dorset would have us believe.
	I think that the hon. Gentleman is well aware of my second point about practice, which is closely related to my first. The Bill shows that he is keen to establish the absolute power of the Speaker and the Deputy Speakers—of course, I accept that—although the Speaker and his deputies are big and powerful enough to look after themselves. Clause 1 remarks that
	"This Act does not remove the absolute discretion of the Speaker".
	It says that the Speaker
	"shall not be questioned in any court of law",
	and that
	"this Act in no way affects the ability of the Speaker, or any Member acting in his stead in accordance with the Standing Orders of the that House, to preside over the business of the House of Commons or a committee thereof, or to cast his vote on any item of business."
	The hon. Gentleman is keen to establish the power of the Speaker, and rightly so, because if the Bill became law, the Speaker would be challenged, and I am uncomfortable about that.
	Despite the reassurances in clause 1, I have no doubt that there are people within and, more particularly, without Parliament who would challenge the discretion of the Speaker. I noted carefully the points that the hon. Gentleman himself raised on the subject. I do not want the Speaker to be brought into controversy; he should be above challenge. If we were to go down the route proposed by the hon. Gentleman, it might be better to use a system currently in use and have the Secretary of State certify the territorial extent of legislation. Secretaries of State use that process when it comes to the European convention on human rights. On the front of each Bill, there is a statement saying that the Bill accords with human rights legislation. I would like to move away from the possibility of challenges to the Speaker and his deputies, and instead have difficult, controversial decisions made by the Secretary of State.
	On the third practical issue, we are without doubt discussing a constitutional Bill. If a Government Bill had recommended removing hon. Members' rights to vote and speak, hon. Members would clamour for the Bill to be dealt with line by line, clause by clause, on the Floor of the House, and it would be a clamour that we ought to support. However, if the hon. Gentleman's Bill receives its Second Reading today, which is doubtful, the Bill will go upstairs for Committee consideration, just as any other private Member'sBill would. It would be wrong for what is clearly a constitutional Bill, albeit a private Member's Bill,to face a different process from a Government constitutional Bill, which would be considered on the Floor of the House.
	To conclude, I support the Union and I believe strongly that the Union adds to the four constituent parts of the country. The Union is valuable to us all, and I am concerned that if the Bill became law,we would lose the power of the Union, and theUnited Kingdom's status in the world. There are commentators, such as Professor Bognador, who is the tutor of the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), who would describe the Bill as reckless and opportunist. He is right; its measures are also unprincipled and unpractical, and we should argue strongly against them and refuse to accept them later today.

Oliver Heald: May I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) on his success in the ballot, and on raising an important issue? I thought that I would speak at this point in light of the imputation of the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr. Brown). It is a tribute to my hon. Friend that all Members who have spoken so far have recognised that the subject is important and requires more discussion, and the House is grateful to him for providing that opportunity. It was excellent that my hon. Friend opened the debate by putting the situation in its historical context and going through the history as carefully as he did. I know that the House will be grateful to him for that.
	The right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) was characteristically honest when he said that Labour's position is based on the party's electoral interests. That was the basis of his remarks. We saw an example of that in the speech of the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), who cited many implausible scenarios that would scupper the Bill. He was clearly putting the issue in very full context. Towards the end of his remarks, he said that it was unlikely that the Bill would get a Second Reading. No doubt he and his colleagues will be proud that that is the result of their activities today.
	I share my hon. Friend's concern that there is an imbalance in our constitution following devolution. Although devolution is well established and we support it, it raises an issue particularly as between England and Scotland that requires further consideration. At present Members representing Scottish seats can help to decide matters for England over which they haveno say in their own constituencies, and Members representing English seats have no say in domestic matters in Scotland, which are largely decided by the Scottish Parliament. There is a lack of reciprocity.
	The hon. Member for Sherwood speaks of fearing two classes of Members in this place, but he ought to be prepared to observe that we are already in that situation. There are the Members who can decide matters for their constituents on domestic issues and those who cannot—they can just decide matters for other Members' constituents. I hope that the hon. Gentleman also recognises that the Opposition have drawn attention to the issue since the Scotland Billwas first presented to the House. In the reasoned amendment to that Bill on its Second Reading, the imbalance was one of the points highlighted.
	Before the last election, the Bills on university top-up fees and foundation hospitals were passed only by the votes of Scottish MPs, even though both policies had been rejected by the Scottish Parliament and neither measure would apply there. Given the Prime Minister's reduced House of Commons majority, he has been more dependent than ever on the votes of his Scottish Members of Parliament as he tries to push through measures that are often deeply unpopular in his own party.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Sherwood about one thing: there is a trend of power moving to the local from the national, and such devolution is worth while. But Labour's approach to the so-called West Lothian question, or the English question, has been to pretend that it does not exist. It was summed up, as I mentioned before, in the words of the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Irving, when he said in 1999:
	"Now that we have devolution up and running, I think the best thing to do about the West Lothian question is to stop asking it." —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 25 June 1999;Vol. 602, c. 1201.]
	In an appearance before the Commons Liaison Committee, the Prime Minister brushed aside the concerns of the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), by saying that he did not agree that there was a problem and that the debate on the subject had gone on for ever.
	I believe, and I think everyone who has spoken would agree, that the Prime Minister's position is a dangerous one. His failure to acknowledge, let alone resolve, the West Lothian question raises fundamental questions of fairness, democratic accountability and legitimacy. It is right that those of us who care about both democracy and the Union should try to address the issue. I welcome the fact that the leader of the Liberal Democrat party has also said that the issue needs to be considered, although he has not come up with a solution.

Angela Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that given the powers of the Greater London authority, the Bill would also apply to London MPs and London matters? Would it not mean that London MPs should not vote on English matters relating to powers devolved to London?

Bridget Prentice: My hon. Friend the Memberfor Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith) makes a good point. Under the logic of the Bill, if a matter is devolved to the London assembly, London Members should not vote on it when it is put to the House in relation to the rest of England.

Oliver Heald: The Minister clearly has not read the Bill either. She may not have spotted this, but it is about making legislation, which she and I do all the time—at least, she proposes it and I sometimes oppose it. The London assembly does not yet have law-making powers, and personally I would not want it to.

Oliver Heald: I should like to make a bit more progress.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on one point. We certainly do not support the idea of an English Parliament, and he explained the reasons for that quite well. As for regional assemblies, they are not popular. Regions are not known, liked or understood in large parts of the country. As the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen said, even in areas where it has traditionally been said that regions are popular, such as the north-east, people were not prepared to countenance the kind of regional assemblies proposed by the Deputy Prime Minister when the referendums took place. I think that there is a mood in this country not to have lots more politicians. I have never gone to a doorstep where people have said to me, "Let's have a lot more politicians with pay and rations."
	My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) is chairing a democracy taskforce examining constitutional issues in order to recommend improvements that the Conservative party may wish to consider as part of our policy review.We want to consider its recommendations and the reasoning for them before coming to decisions on the detail of these delicate and important matters. Asmy right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) has made clear, we are committed to finding a constructive Unionist solution to the situation. This Government have often charged ahead with little thought for the consequences when undertaking fundamental constitutional reform. It is therefore vital that any reform that we may propose in future is based on a careful assessment of the options. Some of the implausible objections put forward this morning do not bear close examination, but we do want the detail looked into very carefully.
	Let me pick up on one or two points. It has been suggested that it would be frightfully difficult for a Speaker to certify a Bill. As the hon. Member for Sherwood should know, this a procedure that Mr. Speaker has undertaken for many years. According to Standing Order No. 97:
	"After any public bill has first been printed, the Speaker shall, if of the opinion that its provisions relate exclusively to Scotland, give a certificate to that effect."
	The matter is then dealt with in a particular way in this House. It is not a procedure used at the moment because we are not passing Scottish Bills, but it is a well established practice for the Speaker to certify the territorial extent of a Bill for these sorts of purposes. It never created any difficulty.
	In Scotland, Bills are passed with a territorial extent and it has created no difficulty. On occasions when Scotland wanted to co-ordinate with what is happening in this place, it has not created a problem and motions have still worked, so I really think that Government Members are making objections that do not hold water. There is no reason why there should be any difficulty.
	It was also suggested that it would be very difficult for a Member of Parliament who is Scottish to be Prime Minister. Not a bit of it; it would make no difference at all. If a Member were thought suitable by his party to lead that party and he became the Prime Minister, there would be no problem with that at all.

Oliver Heald: Yes, I absolutely endorse that. What is more, if the Labour party in government needed to think about what the needs of England really were and what legislation was appropriate for England, and it wanted to consult widely with other parties in the House, I do not think that it would be a bad thing.Why should we not pass laws for England that are actually attractive to those who represent English constituencies?

Angela Smith: Surely the hon. Gentlemanis not suggesting that with respect to legislationled by Members representing Scottish constituenciesor legislation in the name of a Prime Minister representing a Scottish constituency—as opposed to being Scottish, which is not the point. Surely that would create an untenable situation whereby Ministers representing Scottish constituencies would present legislation in this House that their colleagues in Scottish constituencies could not vote on.

Angela Smith: The hon. Gentleman is generous in giving way. Surely that would mean that that very Minister would not be able to vote on his own legislation, which is untenable.

Oliver Heald: I am surprised to hear the hon. Lady say that, because the Prime Minister hardly ever votes for any of his legislation. The fact is that we are stuck with that and I do not think that the hon. Lady's point holds water for a moment.
	I would also like to say that the hon. Member for Sherwood was on to a point when he said that we should look into the Westminster situation as a whole and that matters are not set in stone. One of the things about our constitution that I personally like and support is its flexibility: if circumstances change, the constitution can change. He is absolutely right that if the Government wish to proceed with what seems to be the logic of the votes earlier this week—that democracy should prevail in the other place—it is incumbent on them to come up with a detailed set of proposalsabout how exactly it will work. The House voted for something that the Government did not propose, so he was right to point that out, and the Government may want to consider the relationship between the different nations of the Union in that context.
	Let us consider cross-border matters. The Scottish Parliament currently deals with health matters for Scotland, and hospitals in the south of Scotland are subject to that. As far as I know, that does not create a problem in the north of England, but if the hon. Gentleman has evidence that some new procedure is required, he will doubtless present it. However, I felt that he was flying a kite.
	If we consider constitutional reform under the Government, some measures are welcome but the procedure has often been botched. One example isthe abolition of the post of Lord Chancellor. It was announced as part of a reshuffle after a mere five minutes' consultation with the Lord Chief Justice. It required a concordat with the Lord Chief Justice to settle his concerns and more than 250 amendments in the other place because the proposal was so badly thought through. In the end, the Lord Chancellor was not abolished. The Conservative party should try to do better. That is why we have a democracy taskforce, which is a measured approach to constitutional reform.
	I am especially conscious of the Union because of the 300th anniversary. Conservatives are strong supporters of the Union and we would not wish todo anything to undermine it. Indeed, if anything, we would like to strengthen it. That is not based on sentimental reasoning. I firmly believe that the Union has been one of the greatest political success stories of modern European history. It continues to contribute massively to the UK's culture, strength, stability and prosperity while enabling each constituent part to retain its proud sense of national and local identity.
	All four nations that make up the UK benefit from the Union and continue to achieve much more together than they would separately. The Union must be strengthened, hence the need to address the unfinished business of the devolution settlement.

Oliver Heald: The Republic was an aspiration of people in the south and they achieved it. However, if we consider the economic consequences, it was difficult for the Republic in its early days. It had a long period of financial difficulty when matters were pretty desperate. Setting up as a new state is not easy and should not be underestimated. Applying to the European Union for membership and having to compete with all the countries from eastern Europe that are vying to get in means that one would not, as a new entrant, necessarily get the sort of deal or arrangement that one would have got when the Republic or the UK joined. The hon. Gentleman should not think that being a small independent nation is always easy economically. It is not.

Oliver Heald: The fact is that there came a point when the Republic decided to follow what is loosely known as Thatcherite economics. It is since then that the Republic has done extremely well, although I do not remember the Scottish National party ever agreeing with us about that.  [ Interruption. ] Perhaps I can continue and annoy hon. Members a little bit more.
	These days the Chancellor of the Exchequer is concerned to form a Government. That might explain—following what I would call the Itchen principle, which is that people often speak on the subject in their party's narrow interests—why he has changed his views so much over the years. In the book that he wrote some years ago, "The Politics of Nationalism and Devolution", he said:
	"Devolution must be taken out of the relatively restricted confines of Scotland and Wales and seen as part of the attempt to make British Government more acceptable to the British people".
	He continued:
	"Most of all, a revised Scotland Act could embody some form of...'in and out' principle. Under such a principle the remaining Scottish MPs at Westminster would not be allowed to take part in the proceedings of the House when it was debating England or Welsh domestic matters".
	He added:
	"Labour...may be expected to consider a plan along these lines",
	and concluded:
	"No coherent or defensible proposal for devolution can emerge as long as the problems of exerting democratic control over the Scottish and Welsh office are tackled on their own".
	The Chancellor therefore argued for a similar system to what is proposed today. I assume that he will take no offence at all when the Minister rubbishes his former argument, but it seems that he has moved on since the sniff of No. 10 has been in his nostrils.
	Hon. Members will be well aware of the concern about the issue in the House and the country. Elections for the Scottish Parliament are not far away. We should mount a strong defence of the Union, but that should not be an alibi for the failings of the Labour party. Despite its no doubt good intentions, it has failed to deliver in Scotland as in other parts of the United Kingdom. Labour must do far better on tackling crime and drug abuse and give better care for those who are addicted. We need a more caring and more effective Government, particularly in Scotland but also in the rest of the UK. The Barnett formula has been mentioned, but the leader of the Conservative party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney, has made it clear that we do not seek to make a change to that.
	I recently visited Scotland, along with my shadow Cabinet colleagues, and met the Electoral Commission in Edinburgh. It has a serious challenge in ensuring that electors are aware of the complex voting systems that the Government have inflicted on them. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe will report his findings later this year. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset has put down a marker and will want to be involved in the debate at that stage, too, so I thank him for arranging this debate today.

Angela Smith: I must confess that I feel slightly guilty for participating in this debate, because I am aware that there are Scots here from all parts of the House who want to make a contribution. I shall try not to detain the Chamber for too long, although I am sure that at least one Scot will be called before the end of the debate.
	We have heard a lot about the history of the subject. We have had a quick trot through the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries, and mention has been made of 1949 and the Republic of Ireland, and the devolution referendum for Scotland in 1979, which I can remember—and I remember only too painfully the events that followed shortly afterwards. I also remember the poll tax—it would be nice if Opposition Members were to say that I am too young to remember it, but somehow I do not think that that will be the case. We have also heard a great deal about the West Lothian question. None of that persuaded me, however, that the Bill is anything other than an attempt by the Conservative party to build the possibility of getting a majority in the House of Commons on many occasions.
	Before I speak about the Bill in more detail, I recommend that the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland follow the example of the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), who is not only the shadow Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs but the shadow Minister for Sheffield—at least he has made some constructive efforts to build support in that city. If only the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland would do the same in Scotland, perhaps the Conservative party could start to think about rebuilding its base there. It is a long way from doing so, and today's Bill is a shortcut to solving a sorry state of affairs for the Conservative party.
	On the territorial matters in the Bill, the isolationof English-only parts of a Bill is unlikely if not impossible. Many Acts that could be perceived as dealing with English-only issues have sections that extend to Scotland and Wales. Even when the territorial clause is applied, that is not always apparent. An example from last year was the Compensation Bill, which, thanks to the efforts of my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), ultimately contained an important clause relating to mesothelioma and compensation for miners who had contracted it. In almost every regard, the Compensation Bill applied principally to England, but that one important clause, clause 3, applied to Scotland. The Bill related to legal matters, on which there is a huge difference between Scotland and England, but that clause had to apply to Scotland. It would have been very difficult, had the Bill before us been in force, to separate that clause out and to have a Second and Third Reading. There are fundamental difficulties relating to the Bill.
	It has been mentioned already, but it needs to be mentioned again, that a fundamental constitutional principle is at stake: all MPs are equal in this Chamber and should be able to vote on any issue brought before them. Limiting the voting rights for MPs would create two classes of Member, which is unacceptable. It is a fundamental principle of the Union that all parts ofit are equally represented at Westminster. My righthon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) made probably one of the best defences that I have heard of an unwritten constitution, which may not please Liberal Democrat Members. I agree with him that there is never an end to constitutional debate, but I am sure that he will agree with me that, whatever constitutional change takes place in future, there cannot be two classes of MP.
	I would go so far as to say that having English votes for English laws is not sustainable. The in-and-out principle to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen referred would create tensions that would soon lead to demands for a separate English Parliament, which in turn would threaten the Union.
	I know that that argument is denied by the Opposition, but the Bill would inevitably lead to that tension and threaten the Union in the end, because the English Parliament's measures would be so dominant that neither the Union Parliament nor the other devolved institutions would be able to maintain their autonomy. For example, if an English Parliament reduced public spending and made a demand on the Union Parliament that taxation be cut as a consequence, those tax cuts would apply to Scotland and Wales equally as they would to England, via a Union Parliament. The expenditure implications of any legislation apply across the Union more often than not. It is that fundamental underlying point, made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), which more than anything else makes it impossible, or very difficult, for us to accept the Bill.

Oliver Heald: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her kind remarks about Sheffield. My mother lives there and I am having a very good and rewarding time there.
	Is it not the case that under the Scotland Act, which is, after all, the governing legislation for the Scottish Parliament, Treasury matters are reserved to the UK Parliament? The hon. Lady's fear would not arise.

Angela Smith: I repeat that an English Parliament or an English-based decision-making process would have an impact on reserved matters at Union level.
	The facts on that are clear. In England the population is just under 52 million; in Wales it is3 million and in Scotland 5 million. There is an in-built majority within the UK, and consequently the UK parliamentary system, which means that it is inevitable that we have the variables in our constitutional arrangements to protect those parts of the UK that do not have the weight and power of England.
	Another relevant point is that the Bill, if passed into law, would make it difficult for the Government to do their job. Would it mean, for instance—I raised this in an intervention—that Ministers representing Scottish constituencies would not be able to lead on legislation that was designated as English only? Would it mean that the scope of the Prime Minister for choosing the best and the most able to serve in Government posts would be seriously curtailed? Surely that would not be sensible.
	Historical evidence tells us clearly that Scotland has been represented by some of our finest politicians,and a great many Labour Members believe that that continues to be the case. If we could never have a Scottish Prime Minister or a Prime Minister with a Scottish constituency, the Chamber would be sadly reduced in terms of its effectiveness and ability to lead the country. We have many examples to draw on to demonstrate that.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) referred to Gladstone, who represented Midlothian when he led the debate on Home Rule for Ireland. He also extended the franchise and introduced the secret ballot. Following on from Gladstone, we had Campbell-Bannerman and Asquith, who between them represented Stirling and East Fife. Those two Prime Ministers in particular laid the basis of the Liberal reforms, free school meals, old age pensions, labour exchanges—which were still called that when I was small—sick pay and unemployment benefit. Scottish Prime Ministers or Prime Ministers representing Scottish constituencies have done a great deal forthe UK.
	It is also true, is it not, that the 1707 Union in itself is fundamental to Britain's economic development, and that we are stronger together than apart. For that reason alone, it is critical that we do not do anything today, or vote for any legislation today, that threatens the Union. Britain's place in the world was built on and remains dependent on the Union. Not only Scotland but England would lose its place at the top table if the Union were to split, something that I think would be inevitable.

Angela Smith: As has already been said, it took Ireland a very long time to get there. Why go backwards when it is better for us to stay together and continue to move forward?
	If the Union split, we would also lose our placeon the United Nations Security Council, along with our veto power. That is why I think we should think extremely carefully before making any move away from the current arrangements.
	Evidence has shown consistently that the Liberal Democrat answer to the so-called West Lothian question would not work. A federation in which one partner is dominant tends not to work; one partner representing 30 per cent. of the whole is the most it can normally cope with. In Germany in 1949, for example, the old Prussia was divided into several parts to prevent if from dominating the new state. Is that what we want for England? I do not think so.
	As a northerner with a strong sense of northern identity, I must admit that a part of me would respond very positively to such a proposal. Indeed, in the dark and distant days of the 1980s I often felt like making a unilateral declaration of independence. But my head tells me that the adoption of such a policy would be disastrous for the north of England economically in the long term, and I would resist it strongly. I do believe that devolution for England is the genuine way forward, but that is not the answer presented by the Bill. The real answer is proper devolution for England, putting us on the same level as the Scots and London. In the long term, devolution for England, and particularly for its regions, is inevitable. Even if it takes five, 10 or 15 years, we will have devolution in the end, because it works, people like it, and it benefits the regions economically and socially.
	Another important point is that England cannot be overruled entirely against its wishes, even under the current arrangements. England provides more than80 per cent. of the membership of the House of Commons, and there are just 59 Scottish MPs. For a decision to be imposed on an English majority, more than 200 English MPs would have to join all those from the other nations. Even in the governing party, the party with the largest group of Scottish MPs—long may that continue, as I am sure it will—there are only 39 in a total of 355. That statistic hardly suggests a dictatorship of the north, and I do not think there will ever be one while there is a total of 428 English MPs.
	There are a number of Ministers representing Scottish constituencies in Parliament, and quite right too. They are talented individuals doing a good job, serving their country and the Union. They are in Parliament not just to represent Scottish constituents but to legislate on behalf of all in the Union: they have a collective responsibility to legislate for the benefit of everyone who lives in the United Kingdom.
	Members of Parliament are representatives, not delegates. Edmund Burke—one of the grandfathers of the Conservative party, or at least of Conservative party thinking—said
	"Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where... not local prejudices ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole."
	That was an 18th-century way of saying that we are all here to work for the collective good. English votes for English laws would break that important principle, making the MP's constituency the most important defining factor about him or her. That would reduce our role considerably and for the worse.
	There are other important practical questions to ask about the Bill. Would the Speaker have to rule on each clause of each Bill? As noted in respect of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the territorial extent clause does not always tell the full story. Who would rule on allegations that different clauses had been considered by the wrong Parliament? Would there be challenges to the Speaker, and would the principle that the Speaker's authority is paramount be compromised? Also, where would we stop? Should anyone other than London MPs vote on changes to the powers of the Greater London authority? Only two months ago, this House voted collectively on a Bill to extend the powers of the GLA. The logic of the Bill before us today would mean that we would have to apply the principle in question to the GLA as much as we did to England and Wales.
	We would end up with the break-up of the Union itself. The Bill is a dangerous measure, and it must be resisted. It threatens the economic future of the UK. It would also threaten our position in the world and weaken our influence. It would weaken and damage the social ties between the countries that make up the Union. Scotland, England and Wales have lived in peace since the Act of Union of 1707. As a Union, we have built prosperity and economic stability for our peoples. We have worked together, rather than apart. We have learned the lessons of history. We have moved on: we stopped fighting each other and started working for the common good, and long may we continue todo so. We cannot weaken our relationships. I urge Members to reject the Bill.

Angus MacNeil: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) on promoting the Bill. The intentions behind it are good. I should also say that he was generous and courteous in respect of taking interventions, which was greatly appreciated.
	The Bill is an attempt to sort out certain anomalies that have been created, and the hon. Gentleman should be congratulated on trying to do so. Most of the anomalies have arisen because of devolution, under which the Scottish Parliament can act independently in certain restricted areas and come to decisions of its own that can, theoretically, be quite different fromthe conclusions reached in this House. It might be worth pointing it out to Members that most partiesin Scotland now want more powers—either more devolution or independence for the Scottish Parliament. That a couple of parties want more devolution leads me to conclude that devolution is ultimately independence for slow learners, because Scotland will become independent. More and more powers will be moved from London to Holyrood. Independence is the inevitable consequence of the path that we are on. Members of other parties might think that that will not happen, but time will tell, and the sweep of history is on the side of the Scottish National party. In time, it will be seen that that will happen.
	The Bill hopes to address the West Lothian question. That question is best answered by offering the West Limerick example. The voters of West Limerick have no interaction with the voters of, for instance, West Leicestershire, and the MPs for Leicestershire and Limerick have no connection at all. They get on perfectly well and perfectly peacefully to their mutual benefit with their own national Parliaments. That shows how matters will develop in the future.
	Labour and Liberal Members thought that the SNP would support the Bill. Unfortunately, we think that it is, in effect, a square peg for a round hole; despite being well intentioned, it does not offer a solution. That it was thought that we would support it shows that whenever the Liberals and Labour analyse SNP policy their analysis is invariably wrong, as it certainly is on this occasion, because we do not support the Bill at all.
	It is not the job of the SNP to sort out whatever anomalies arise at Westminster—whatever mess arises from efforts that are akin to attempting to plug holes in a dam. However, I should add that the SNP has been helpful to Westminster in recent times. The searchlight that has been cast on cash for peerages might have been the decisive factor in bringing about the recent vote in favour of having a 100 per cent. elected House of Lords—which I welcome, of course. It is a Scottish tradition to tidy up the house before leaving, and perhaps that will be one of the great favours that the SNP has done Westminster. We hope that it is looked on kindly—after independence.
	I have great sympathy with the position as outlined by the hon. Member for North Dorset. It cannot be fair that certain Members vote on legislation that affects not their constituents but somebody else's. For my part, I scrupulously try to avoid that, which sometimes involves much pain, but it is not always possible to do so. Reference has been made to the Bill's territorial reach, and there are sometimes certain consequences to consider.

Angus MacNeil: Indeed I can. That decision was reached after much internal debate in the SNP. It became clear that that Bill did have consequencesfor Scotland, and not least for the national body representing parole officers, which approached the SNP. That is why we voted on the Bill.

Alan Whitehead: Does that not underline the extreme difficulty of defining what relates to which part of the UK, in terms of the Speaker's proposed responsibilities as defined in the Bill? Does the hon. Gentlemannot agree that he has just illustrated how difficult—indeed, almost impossible—it would be in practiceto do a good job as a constituency Member in those circumstances?

Angus MacNeil: I agree fully; indeed, the hon. Gentleman has anticipated some of my remarks. Ultimately, the solution is to do what Latvia, Lithuania, Iceland, Ireland and Norway have done, which is to have an independent country—indeed, two independent countries.
	The current situation does lead to problems. For example, it is very hard to define exactly where the territorial reach ends. That has consequences, as we know from the examples of top-up fees, foundation hospitals and the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill, on which the SNP had to vote because we could not get a guarantee from the Minister on the Floor of the House that there would not be consequences for Scotland. The same was true of the Offender Management Bill.
	The solution to all this is not the Bill before us, as the sweep of history shows. In 1900, there were a mere50 independent nations or states in the world; today, there are some 200. This is a growing phenomenon, and it will continue to grow, and Scotland will eventually join in. When the slow learners figure out that devolution is actually independence in progress, we will have an independent Scotland—and, indeed, an independent England. The Bill does not really deal with the various problems, for the salient reasons that the hon. Gentleman just gave. The SNP frequentlyhas to examine legislation, and I would not beaverse to guidance being provided on a particular Bill's consequences. That would certainly make our job easier, instead of having to work out from first principles whether a Bill has consequences for Scotland.
	The Bill also overlooks the situation regarding statutory instruments. Indeed, earlier this week, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) and I served on a Committee that dealt with a statutory instrument for Scotland. There is an anomaly within the Bill's text, in that it does not account for such matters. That issue has perhaps been overlooked, which might be indicative of the nature of the Bill itself.
	As far as the SNP is concerned, the current brochan, as they say in Gaelic—the porridge—at Westminster is a shambles. However, the only workable solution is for MPs to be independent—for them to be left to decide individually, or in groups, on the exact reach of a particular Bill. For the SNP's part, we will try as best we can not to interfere in English governance. We actually believe that the English are more than capable of governing themselves. I often chide English MPs and point out to them that France, Germany and Spain are capable of governing themselves without any help from the Scots, and I believe firmly that England is just as capable. When England is an independent nation, the sweep of history will show that to be true.
	The solution to the problems that have been outlined and identified in this debate is not this Bill, however well intentioned, but independence for the good people of England. We have to remember that this is Europe's largest stateless nation, and I hope that some day it will take its place in the world. The hon. Member for North Dorset correctly identifies a problem, but I assure him that it will be sorted out fairly soon by means of Scottish independence.

Alan Whitehead: My hon. Friend raises an interesting and important point, which was unfortunately brushed over by Opposition Members as an argument that did not hold water because Members were raising issues that might never happen. However, when making constitutional legislation we have to think about the things that might come up during the passage of Bills to the statute book and the outcome described by my hon. Friend could indeed come to pass.
	The hon. Member for North Dorset tries to protect Mr. Speaker through provisions on the presentation of certificates to Parliament and the making of other rulings; clause 1 would ensure that there would be no recourse to Messrs. Solicitor and Barrister or the courts to overturn the Speaker's rulings. Nevertheless, the situation described by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) could arise during the course of a Bill. Furthermore, the Speaker himself might consider that the original arrangements had not been determined correctly and should be rectified, in which case any previous proceedings on the Bill would be nullified for the rest of its passage. Merely in terms of that narrow reading of the hon. Gentleman's Bill, it would seem unwise for the House to proceed with it.
	There has been wider speculation in the Chamber today about the reason why the Bill was introduced. For decades there have been anomalies in the waythe House votes on its business. They have attracted periodic but not enormous attention, and there has been some support from the Opposition for their continuation. I am thinking in particular of the continued participation of Northern Ireland Members in votes in this place on business that did not concern Northern Ireland while Stormont was sitting on a devolved basis.
	Why is a change being proposed now? I was interested to learn that a commission for democracy has been set up through Conservative party channels, to decide, among other things, on issues covered by the Bill. Indeed, it has been suggested that a measure such as the Bill may be considered by the commission, so if the House's deliberations today serve only one purpose, it will be to tell the commission, "Don't do it—think about something else". Although we are talking about a real issue, it will not be resolved by addressing the detailed way in which we make our decisions with an attempt to solve the West Lothian question throughthe device of setting up two classes of Members of Parliament.
	That is at the heart of the wider issue raised by the Bill. Devolution to the Scottish Parliament of powers to make legislation and raise taxes and devolution to a lesser extent to Wales came about as the result of Acts of Parliament here. As has been said this morning, it is possible, although highly unlikely, that a similar Actof Parliament could undo that process. Therefore, although it is true that there is an anomaly in terms of the way in which votes may be said to take place on a daily basis in the House on legislation that affects parts of the UK, but not other parts, it is also true that Members are in the House on the basis that they have an overall concern about all legislation that relates to the UK, because of the way in which the legislation devolved from an Act of Parliament passed and contributed to by all Members of Parliaments in the UK when devolution first took place.
	It has been emphasised that the logic of the Bill is not that it resolves that anomaly, but that it leads on to a resolution by other means: the setting up of an English Parliament, which, presumably, would havethe same legislative features as perhaps a Welsh Parliament, the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly. In those circumstances, as hon. Members have also pointed out, there could well be a certain outcome, because one particular part of that federation would have an overwhelming preponderance of the votes. I am afraid that the hon. Memberfor North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) failed to understand the importance of that point, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Smith).
	If the federal Parliament were to vote on the money supply for the UK as a whole and devolve that into national Parliament components, and a national Parliament that had 80 per cent. of the votes for the federal Parliament as a whole then considered the matter, the likelihood of the entire decision-making process of that federal Parliament effectively being run by the one Parliament that had 80 per cent. of the votes in terms of the decision making on finances in the first place, would be high. The net result of a federal system would be that, in effect, there would be less power and devolution for the components than there is at the moment. That outcome would look quite perverse in terms of the ambitions of those who sought to push through that federal arrangement in the first place.
	The other important point at the heart of the debate is that the Bill seeks to resolve a question about the extent to which there is symmetry in the way in which the affairs of the House work. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) pointed out earlier than the constitution of the United Kingdom has never easily bumped along on the basis of attempts to secure exact symmetry at any one stage. In many ways, the UK constitution is involved in a process of continual becoming. As a position is reached, further changes are made.
	As has been pointed out, the West Lothian question is not an issue that arose at the time when the then Member for West Lothian mentioned it; it has a much longer pedigree than that. If one looks at the question of asymmetric devolution, not just in the UK, but in various parts of the world, one realises that not only is it not a relatively recent phenomenon in this country, but a common phenomenon in many countries across the world, and particularly in Europe.
	Let us think about the UK's constitutional position. We have discussed the question of the Scottish Parliament, which has its own parliamentary processes and the ability to introduce legislation and varytax. There are also representatives elected to theUK Parliament—not the same representatives, but representatives who are voted for by the same electorate.
	Wales has no tax-raising power and no primary legislative capacity but it has representatives in the UK Parliament deriving from the same electorate who elect the representatives of its own Assembly. Jersey has its own Parliament and does not have representatives in the UK Parliament, yet the UK Government are responsible for a number of things as far as Jersey is concerned. Jersey is not an independent country, but it does not have the same status as Scotland and Wales.
	That is a further and long-standing part of asymmetric devolution in the UK. Indeed, a number of Jersey's residents would claim that the UK is devolved from Jersey, in so far as Jersey is the last part of the Norman possessions that remained in the hands of the King of Normandy, who became the UK King after 1066. Jersey and Guernsey do not have the same constitutional status, nor does the Isle of Man. It has its own, ancient Parliament, and it, too, does not have representatives in the UK Parliament.

Alan Whitehead: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for filling me in on sections of the recent history of devolution in Spain. He is quite right that Catalunya is undoubtedly a nation. It has its own history, culture and language, yet it sits in the unified constitutionof Spain. In the past, it has elected nationalist Governments, although it is now governed by representatives of the Spanish Socialist party, which is clearly a good thing. However, under a constitution involving asymmetrical devolution, the state of Spain has not broken up, and nor have there been riots about the relative role of Catalunyans in the Spanish Parliament or any significant interference with the devolved process.
	A further important point about Spain is that following what one might call the initial anomalous devolution, all the other regions in Spain achieved states of devolution—autonomia—that approximated to, but did not quite equate to, those in Galicia, Euskadi and Catalunya. That means that Spain has both a unitary and a highly devolved structure of government. The change to the constitutional settlement has, to an extent—precisely as my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen described—amended the constitution to deal with new issues as they arise.
	I consider that the wider consequence of our debate is the suggestion that we should set our face against attempts to implement tinkering administrative solutions to the question of devolution in this country that relate to the way in which our Parliament deals with anomalies that have been part of the British constitution for hundreds of years, one way or another. Instead, we should consider how the devolution of power and authority to not an English Parliament, but the English regions, might proceed. I share the view of several hon. Members that although the question of devolution to the English regions is resting, it has certainly not gone away. If we are ever to come up with a solution to either Fermat's last theorem or the West Lothian question —

Alan Whitehead: I think that the hon. Gentlemanwas out of the Chamber when the question of independence and federal Parliaments was dealt with. In such circumstances, I suggested that the applicable phrase would be "beware of your wishes for they might come true". Perversely, the net outcome of a federal Parliament could be much less devolutionary independence and authority than is in place at the moment. That is why the constitutional route that I have suggested would be much firmer. I am grateful to have had the opportunity both to suggest that route and, hopefully, to inform the democracy commission of the Conservative party—

Jo Swinson: The hon. Members who are present are clearly fabulous, but there could have been a greater number of them. I expected to see many more Members on the Conservative Benches, given that the measures in the Bill were Conservative policy at the last election. Clearly, devolution will involve further changes before we get the balance right; as other hon. Members have eloquently said, it will continually evolve, and so it should. The Bill looks at the issue from the wrong end of the telescope. It concentrates on a small anomaly that does not have a huge impact on the constitution, and it entirely misses the bigger picture, which is the unfinished business of devolution for England, and the need to ensure that power is closer to the people, rather than centralised in Westminster.
	Some people have questioned the motivation behind the Bill. Obviously, I accept that the hon. Member for North Dorset has a genuine concern about the current settlement, but it has been pointed out that the subject is wound up with issues of party political advantage, particularly given that the Conservatives did not think that there was a problem at all in the 1960s, when the boot was on the other foot, as was mentioned earlier in respect of the situation in Northern Ireland. Now, they are in a very different position, particularly electorally in Scotland. Their own shadow Secretary of State for Scotland said, in a recent well-publicised memo, that
	"There are more obvious problems than solutions emanating from Scotland from a party point of view."
	I would argue that the Conservatives are increasingly an English party and, furthermore, a party of south-east England. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) is not in the Chamber for today's debate. I know initially he had a diary clash because of the Scottish Conservative party conference, but that is clearly no longer an issue, because according to senior Tories in Scotland, he was certain to get booed, so he has no excuse for not being here.
	The Conservatives are picking and choosing the anomalies that they want to correct. The current Labour Government were elected on 35 per cent. of the vote, yet more than 55 per cent. of Members are Labour, so the issue of the Government mandate is a much more serious anomaly, but the Conservatives are far less keen to change our warped electoral system. In fact, as was pointed out by the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), if the issue of electoral reform were addressed, the saliency of the issue would be considerably reduced, because parties would be better and more fairly represented.
	The Bill will cause more problems than it solves. The issue of Scottish votes deciding English legislation has been raised, but in reality there have been very occasions on which Scottish votes have had that impact. In the 2001 to 2005 Parliament, such votes made a tangible difference to only two Bills—the Health and Social Care Bill and the Higher Education Bill, both of which have already been mentioned. So far in this Parliament, which began in 2005, no legislation that has not related directly to Scotland has been passed just on the votes of Scottish MPs. I would argue that if we considered the frequency with which the issue comes up, we would see that it is not a common problem. The problems that the Bill creates are far greater than the problems that it claims to try to solve.

Bridget Prentice: For clarification to the hon. Lady and others on the effect of the votes of Scottish MPs, in the case of the Heath and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003, even if Scottish MPs had not voted and only English and Welsh MPs had voted, the Government would still have won by 284 votes to 239. That contradicts the myth circulated by those who want an English Parliament.

Jo Swinson: I welcome the intervention from the Minister, with that correction. The briefing that I have states that if only English MPs had voted, the result would have been different, but given that the Bill treats English and Welsh MPs in the same way, nothing would have changed if it had been in place at that time.
	On definition, there are many reasons why it would be difficult for a Bill to be designated as relating only to England. One of the main issues is funding. Members from the Scottish National party who have a policy of not voting when they think there is no Scottish impact often vote on Bills where there is an issue related to Barnett formula consequentials. The total funding package given to the Holyrood Parliament to use as it sees fit would be affected by the passage of a Bill that related to provisions in England and Wales. That is one major area in which it would be difficult to define what is English and what is not.
	Statutory instruments have been mentioned. Earlier this week some of us served on a Committee considering a statutory instrument dealing with the Scottish elections and changes to electoral law. Interestingly, there were Conservative Members on the Committee, not oneof whom represented a Scottish constituency. The Conservatives should look more closely at their own back yard before raising the issues that the Bill seeks to address.
	If a Bill were deemed to contain certain sectionsthat applied to Scotland and others that did not, what would happen on Second Reading? We vote on the Second Reading of the Bill as a whole, not of its parts. These issues would have to be resolved and would be difficult to resolve.

Jo Swinson: Certain electoral matters clearly are reserved, although I suspect that if the Conservatives had more Members representing Scottish constituencies, they might have chosen to put them on the Committee that I mentioned.
	It is ironic that the Bill would prevent Scottish MPs from voting on certain legislation, yet the person who would decide that is himself a Scottish Member of Parliament. Certain Tories have suggested, and been hastily slapped down by their leader, that it may well be impossible for a Member of Parliament representing a Scottish constituency to be Prime Minister. If the Bill were passed, I wonder whether we would start to hear it suggested by the Conservatives that Scottish MPs should not apply for the role of Speaker. That would be extremely regrettable.
	The prospect of two classes of MP at Westminster has been discussed and has far-reaching implications. That would be very divisive and dangerous, and would be a slippery slope. This week we rejected the idea ofa hybrid House of Lords by voting for a second Chamber that was 100 per cent. elected. It would be strange to suggest a hybrid House of Commons.
	Under the Scotland Act 1998, legislation can still be imposed on Scotland by the House. Section 28(7) states:
	"This section does not affect the power of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to make laws for Scotland."
	That is quite clear. Power is devolved to Holyrood; it is not ceded or given away. It would be dangerous to deprive Scottish MPs of the right to debate and voteon legislation, without removing the power of this Parliament to legislate for Scotland in those areas. Some kind of federal structure would correct that. I would favour a situation where the powers of the Scottish Parliament were outlined and could not be overruled by this House, but that has been rejected by Conservatives in the past. Indeed, they rejected the whole concept of devolution, although the hon. Member for North Dorset seems to have recognised that he may have been misguided in that earlier belief.
	One of my main concerns about the Bill is the constitutional chaos that it would cause. That is not just my view but that of the Constitution Unit at UCL, which says that the policy of English votes for English MPs
	"would cause a constitutional crisis far greater than the West Lothian question itself."
	A brief look at the role of statutory instruments and what would happen in relation to the London assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly gives some idea of the mess that would be created. Let us take that to its logical conclusion. It would be a stepping stone to a English Parliament within a UK Parliament. We can imagine a scenario in which one party has a majority among UK Members of Parliament and another among English Members. On certain topics and certain Bills, the UK Government would not be able to get their business through.

Jo Swinson: Indeed. Were English people tohave such a system, they should enjoy the same accountability as we enjoy in Scotland.
	The Bill would create a constitutional messwith no accountability. There could be an English Administration dealing with certain issues that are currently devolved to Scotland, with representatives of one party, and the overall UK Government, led by representatives of another party. How on earth could Cabinet collective responsibility work if different parties were in the same Cabinet?

Jo Swinson: As I have already mentioned, I fully intend to talk about what I believe is the proper way forward. As to timing, other hon. Members have spoken for far longer than I have so far. I am certainly going to continue with my remarks, but— [Interruption.] I hear the hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Mr. Vara) muttering from a sedentary position, but other than the odd intervention, I have not heard him contribute to the debate.
	On the matter of what the Government are doing—or, rather, what they are not doing—on this issue, it was a great Labour politician, Donald Dewar, who famously said that devolution is a process, not an event, and he was absolutely right. Among the public at large, there is a great appetite for more constitutional change. In fact, within the Scottish context, recent polls suggest an appetite for more powers to be given to the Scottish Parliament, which is the most popular option. The "Newsnight" poll conducted by the BBC on the tercentenary of the Act of Union 1707 showed that there was a great deal of support in England and Scotland for the idea of an English Parliament. I would not necessarily support that, but it shows the public appetite for constitutional change. Furthermore, a British social attitudes survey noted a general decline in the number of people who felt that they had a British identity, as opposed to the individual national identities of English, Scottish and Welsh. That has been most marked in England. Clearly, there is an issue that needs to be addressed.
	I have put questions to the Secretary of State for Scotland on the general issue of the Act of Union 1707 and a future constitutional settlement,. The Leader of the House seemed to flirt with the idea of having a debate on that matter in Government time, but the Secretary of State for Scotland seems rather less keen. The Government have consistently said that they have no plans for further constitutional reform, which I think is a great shame. They are ignoring public opinion. It is a short-sighted and irresponsible position because it results in proposals such as this Bill—a well meaning but ill conceived attempt to address the issue—when what we really need is the Government to take the lead in a national debate on the issue.
	In the absence of that, what we propose—it has been proposed by the leader of my party—is a constitutional convention. Surely the best way to achieve constitutional change is by building a consensus and— [Interruption.] I hear Conservative Members ridiculing such an idea. They, of course, did not take part in the Scottish Constitutional Convention, which actually led to a very successful consensus being built around what should happen in respect of devolution for Scotland. That has to be the right way to do it.
	This is too important an issue to get wrong. Frankly, it is probably too important and too big for any one party to have a monopoly on determining a perfect solution. I would argue that the Scottish Constitutional Convention provides a good model. A variety of political parties were involved in it, as were religious groups, trade unions, local government, business people and community groups. Constitutional change affects all those groups within the community, so we do need to bring people together to discuss this.
	I mentioned previously that there is currently only a small issue of asymmetry, but I fear that there is genuine concern out there in the constituencies and that it will grow. Let us consider what happened in the Scottish context after the poll tax. As we discussed earlier, there was a feeling of injustice in the 1990s, which stoked up a great amount of concern, and it needed to be dealt with. Perhaps the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil) regrets this, but I think that if we had not had the referendum and the Scottish Parliament being created when it was, we might have ended up with Scotland resolving the sense of injustice by going down the route to independence, which is why I am so glad that we did implement a Scottish Parliament.

Jo Swinson: Well, the Scottish people will be asked their opinion on independence on 3 May and it will be intriguing to see the results and which parties they choose. If a similar situation were to develop in England and a feeling of injustice grew, my fear is that we would start to deal with it only when it came to a head in some kind of crisis. I would argue that the Government or people in Britain generally are not particularly at their best when it comes to decision-making in the middle of a crisis. We tend to get knee-jerk reactions and Bills rushed through without proper scrutiny and consideration, which something of such magnitude requires. Even though the topic is not a burning issue on the doorstep at the moment, we need to start the process of building consensus and holding a constitutional debate so that, if it becomes much hotter, a great deal of work will already have been done and we can create a robust solution that works.
	A variety of different options is on the table. My party has long favoured the regional governance route. That suffered a setback in the north-east, but I would argue that people in the north-east were not offered an assembly with teeth and sufficient powers. As myhon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said, it would have taken powers upwards from local government rather than devolving them downwards. That concept has therefore not necessarily run its course.
	We favour further devolution of powers to Scotland, including more fiscal powers. Lord Steel has conducted a robust piece of work, which set out how that could happen.
	We need to hold a debate, or the subject couldcreate a headache for us in future. It needs to beheld in a wider context that in that of the Bill,which, although it is well intentioned, has flaws. They are: the practicalities of implementation; the minimal improvements that it would make to the current position; the danger of allowing the UK to legislate for Scotland without the scrutiny of Scottish Members, and the constitutional chaos that it would create. However, ignoring the need for change is irresponsible and short sighted. We must have a robust constitutional settlement and take the time, through proper, calm and considered debate, to get it right.
	Our long-term aim must be to devolve power throughout the UK to allow decision making to take place at the lowest practical level and to simplify rather than increase bureaucracy. I welcome the debate that the Bill has helped spark, but I cannot support the measure.

Mark Lazarowicz: Shortly after the Bill's promoter began his speech, he admitted that he wanted to entitle it the "Scotland Act (Amendment ) Bill". I wish that he had been allowed to do that because it would have highlighted to hon. Members and the wider publicthe far-reaching consequences of the modestly titled measure. Indeed, a more accurate title would have been the "Slow Unravelling of the Union Bill" because that would be its result. The majority of hon. Members would not support such a process.
	I accept that there is an anomaly, but, as I said earlier, when considering whether to tackle it, we must ask ourselves whether our proposed solution will lead to worse consequences than those that the anomaly creates. The Bill's consequences would be serious. Several hon. Members referred to the procedural difficulties that could arise from it and they should not be minimised.
	We have discussed defining measures that apply only to Scotland or only to England and Wales. I noted with some amusement the straight face that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr. MacNeil) kept when he told us that the only reason he voted in debates about apparently English measures wasto do with their content and nothing to do with embarrassing the Government. Whatever people's motivations for voting, difficulties face anyone who tries to define what constitutes a Scottish-only or English-only Bill.
	I remember the former Member for part of the constituency that is now represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr. Brown) proudly announcing that he would not vote on English measures. He was later revealed to have voted on the Mersey Tunnels Bill. I know that much rethinking is happening in the Scottish Conservative party, but suggesting that that measure could apply to Scotland is surely blue skies thinking at its most generous.

Mark Lazarowicz: The SNP will find itself embarrassed in the Scottish elections. We can deal with that when it arises.
	As well as the procedural problems of determining what constitutes Scottish or English measures, there are difficulties about the processes that we operate in Parliament. Some hon. Members have referred to those, but given the limited time available I shall not repeat the points that have been made.
	There are other examples of difficulties that might arise. What would happen if I wanted to amend a clause in a particular Bill that applied only to England so that that clause applied to Scotland? Under the proposals in the Bill, I would presumably not be able to move that amendment, as I would barred from tabling it because I do not represent a constituency in England. However, if that amendment was tabled and moved by somebody else, would I be able to vote on it? In any case, why should I not be able to table an amendment so that provisions in a Bill that applied only to England could apply to Scotland? That is an example of the procedural difficulties that would apply at various stages in the process.
	It is suggested that the same considerations should apply to a programme motion, too. It might be that the big issue for debate in a particular Bill is whether certain provisions would apply to Scotland. However, under the proposals in the Bill, I would be barred from voting on a programme motion to decide whether I would have time to speak and propose that certain elements should apply to Scotland. The same difficulties would apply to measures that had originally started out as a GB Bill but which at some stage in the process stopped applying to Scotland. As I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) earlier, would that mean that the votes of Scottish Members would suddenly be subtracted from previous Divisions on that Bill?
	I am not attempting to uncover little difficulties in order to set up an Aunt Sally or maximise the range of arguments that can be marshalled against the Bill. Those problems are real. For example, the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill could have been introduced as an England-only Bill. As we know, it was decided later that it was most appropriate to introduce it as a UK-wide Bill. Once a Sewel motion had been passed, the Bill would have applied to Scotland as well as England, but Scottish hon. Members would have been entirely excluded from previous debates on it.
	Those procedural difficulties would arise precisely because we have a United Kingdom Parliament that is structured in such a way as to make all hon. Members equal. As the articles of the Treaty of Union make clear, its purpose was to establish one Parliament for the United Kingdom. That is why any attempt to introduce a two-tier system in Parliament seems bound to come up against such procedural difficulties.
	As I have indicated, however, it is not just procedural difficulties that would arise from the Bill. Much wider political problems would arise, too. It has already been pointed out that if the Bill were successful, one of the consequences would be, effectively, two Governments in Parliament. There would be the official Government, formed of Ministers from the party with a majority in the House, but leading members of the Opposition could also act as quasi-Ministers, because the civil servants would know that they could command a majority on certain measures. That would cause all sorts of difficulties, because Ministers would still have the Executive authority but the policy drive would to a great extent come from Members from Opposition parties.

Mark Lazarowicz: Not at all. As I have indicated and as other hon. Members have made clear, the Sewel motion procedure has been used on many occasions, sometimes even with the agreement of the Scottish National party in the Scottish Parliament. The difficulty is therefore not just theoretical, but real.
	There might be an argument about how we reflect the views of the English electorate in the House. I shall touch on that issue in a moment, but the Bill is certainly not the way to achieve that objective. As I have indicated, this Parliament was established as a unitary Parliament, but the consequence of the Bill would be to dismantle it, and I hope that the House will reject that.
	The idea that Scottish MPs make such a difference to legislation here that we are in some way forcing our views on the people of England is absurd. As the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) indicated, the cases in which that might even potentially be regarded as an issue are very limited. The Library research shows that on no occasion has a Second Reading—a vote on the principle of a Bill—been dependent on the vote of Scottish MPs.
	Where one or more nations or states are in partnership in a wider political union, it is not unusual to have provisions that give a certain degree of protection to the smaller members of that union, reflecting the fact that the larger members have a wider say in political arrangements. In the United States Senate, for example, every state has the same number of Senators, which is specifically designed to give a certain degree of protection to the smaller states. In the European Union, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test has indicated, several member states have different degrees of asymmetric devolution within them.
	The Library's helpful briefing paper highlights some 15 countries that have a certain degree of asymmetric devolution—I will not list them, as that would take more time than is available. It is worth while pointing out, however, that as many states have asymmetric devolution as have some form of perfect devolution. In Europe, there are examples of asymmetric devolution that seem to work fairly well. We should reject the suggestion that that arrangement is not sustainable for this country or other countries.
	The Bill would create many much worse anomalies than are said to exist under the present arrangements. The situation in London has been mentioned. Under the Bill, MPs from England and Wales could vote on Scotland-only statutory instruments. Apparently, the minority party Members who have spoken were on a Committee last week, and I am on a Committee next week that deals with a Scottish statutory instrument, which would just apply to Scotland. In the past, the Conservatives have had no objection to the Ulster Unionists being on their side and voting.
	Of course, we have had the anomaly of the unelected House of Lords for centuries. That anomaly might be resolved in the not-too-distant future—I say that with some trepidation. In the meantime, peers who have some connection with Scotland are still able to voteon English-only matters, and yet the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) does not suggest for a minute that there is anything wrong with Scottish-based peers voting on legislation for England. Perhaps that is because a higher proportion of those are Conservatives than is the case in the House of Commons.
	The proposals would be unworkable in practice, except in so far as they would help to undermine the unity of this Parliament. It is worth while considering how the House can improve its processes, but I note that the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs has hardly met, and nor am I aware of a high demand from Members for it to meet. The Bill is not the way forward. Ultimately, in trying to bring about short-term political advantage for the Conservatives, it risks undermining what the Union between Scotland, England and Wales has achieved in the past 300 years.

Bridget Prentice: This has been a good debate. I agree that it has been worth while and I hope that it continues. As a number of hon. Members, including some of my hon. Friends, said that the constitutional settlement is not the best description of the arrangement because "settlement" suggests a permanence when it is in fact an evolving being. We should continue to return to it and consider the issues that are part of it.
	Let me quote to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) someone he has described to me as a very serious heavyweight journalist. The view of Peter Riddell—he mentioned him to me not so long ago—is:
	"The Conservatives' attempt to play the English, or rather the anti-Scottish, card is in danger of backfiring...The question arises from the uneven, or asymmetrical, nature of devolution...Attacking the power of the Scots may appeal to a certain crude English nationalism, but it is weird and inconsistent coming from the party that has been committed to the preservation of the Union."
	He goes on, as the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) did, to say:
	"While English votes for English laws has an appealing ring, it is deeply flawed in practice; the basic problem is the relative size of England, which has more than four fifths of Britain's population and number of MPs."
	A former Secretary of State for Scotland said:
	"This proposal risks creating two classes of MP. It would be a constitutional abortion".
	That was the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind). The shadow Secretary of State for Defence said:
	"The Conservative party needs to remember it is a Unionist party...To claim that a Scottish MP would have difficulty in becoming Prime Minister plays into the hands of the nationalists."
	I fear that the two contributions from the official Opposition played into the hands of the nationalists.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton,Test (Dr. Whitehead), in a serious and considered contribution, reminded the Conservatives that they made no mention of the anomaly of the relationship with Northern Irish MPs in this Parliament when Stormont sat in full force. Others also mentioned that. He was right to suggest gently to the Opposition's taskforce on democracy that it should not go down that road. He gave a detailed analysis of the asymmetrical nature of our devolution when he described what happened with the Channel Islands and other places.

David Heath: I entirely agree. It was never explained to us why, if the principle underlying the Bill was thatonly Members whose constituencies were affectedby legislation should be allowed to vote on it, that principle should not apply to London. Indeed, I would extend it to private legislation. Reference was made to a ports Bill on which practically no one in the House would be allowed to vote under the system espoused by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter).

Robert Walter: The whole question about London and the Greater London authority is a red herring. The GLA does not have legislative powers. The Scottish Parliament has legislative powers both primary and secondary. The Welsh Assembly has secondary legislative powers. The Northern Ireland Assemblywill have, when it is up and running, primary and secondary legislative powers. That is not the case in respect of the GLA, which is a local authority.

Bridget Prentice: The hon. Gentleman is missing the point. What is decided for London by the GLA and the Mayor will very often have effects nationally. As has been pointed out in terms of transport, what happens in London is often crucial to the economy not only of London but of the country as a whole.
	The hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire said that she was disappointed about Government inactionon constitutional matters. I cannot think of any Government in the 20th century who have done more than ours in making the constitution a major issue and in changing it—whether in respect of the Human Rights Act 1998, devolution to Scotland and Wales or the change in the stature of the role performed by my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. However, I agree with the hon. Lady about the dearth of support at present on the Conservative Benches for what is supposedly Conservative party policy. I hope that that will be rectified if we discuss this matter again.
	I will sum up my opposition to the Bill by stressing my belief in the Union—which many hon. Friends have also emphasised. By the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone. I am sure that hon. Friends recognise the source of that comment. I do not believe that the Bill will rectify some perceived inequality in this House, but I do believethat if it is passed it will cause untold damage to our institution of Parliament, which has a tradition of unifying the peoples of our United Kingdom.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith got very close to describing what would happen under the Bill in the way that I would wish to describe it. If we were to distinguish one Member of Parliament from another in terms of what they are and are not allowed to vote on, we would create a form of parliamentary apartheid. At the heart of the Bill is a call to establish institutional difference, which would extinguish the significance and power of the United Kingdom Parliament by creating two classes of Members and subsequently establishing a de facto English Parliament. The hon. Member for North Dorset talked about using this place as a place for the English Parliament. That is the context in which I put the Bill. The need to preserve the Union is paramount, and we must protect it from any hurried constitutional reform of this kind.
	Since the Treaty of Union in 1707—it is appropriate that we are discussing this subject in the year that marks the 300th anniversary of that treaty—the United Kingdom Parliament has been a symbol of a united democracy that represents common values and welcomes differences of identity. Those are the qualities that we see embodied in all our nations today.
	The Union was never about establishing uniformity or changing the uniqueness of each of the individual nations. It was developed through social, economic and political interdependence, and it became a symbol of huge achievements from which the peoples of all of our nations have benefited, and which they continue to enjoy.
	We were brought together 300 years ago by a desire for stability and security. The Scots were keen to gain access to the overseas markets that England held in its possession.

Jim Dowd: I am particularly delighted that Mr. Speaker has allowed me to hold this brief debate on a matter of considerable concern to my constituents. This is in fact the second time that I have been fortunate enough to debate this issue on the Adjournment of the House, but as the first time was some 14 years ago and I was sitting on the other side of the Chamber, I am sure that people will not accuse me of being obsessive about it.
	The tube system in south London, and certainlyin south-east London, has been a joke for many years—largely because it does not exist. In the latter days of the 19th century, the system was run by a cartel. The Southern Electric Company and the Metropolitan Railway, as they then were, decided that they would not encroach on each other's territory, which is one reason why the tube system never came very far south of the Thames. Elaborate hoaxes were devised. Reference was made to saturated sand that made tunnelling impossible, and God knows what else, but it was the commercial interests of the railway companies that largely dictated the layout of the London underground as it exists today. Fortunately, in more enlightened times we have adopted a more progressive view of improving transport in and around the capital.
	When I was growing up in the '50s and '60s, there was a scheme to extend the Bakerloo line from the Elephant and Castle through Walworth, Camberwell, Peckham and Forest Hill and on to Catford and Bromley, but it was never more than a pipe-dream. The costs were always prohibitive, even then, and although the scheme existed on paper, it never existed in fact.
	The extension of the East London line therefore became a much more realistic proposition, particularly in my part of south-east London. Only relatively minor engineering work at New Cross Gate is required to allow it to share the infrastructure with Network Rail that is necessary to produce a service that—when I started campaigning for such an extension in the early '70s, on being elected to Lewisham council—was designed to go to East Croydon. As the proposed extension of the East London line both north and south was discussed—the House will understand if I do not go into detail about the northern extension, important though that is—the ideas were refined. The decision was taken that it would be better to extend the line to West Croydon, which serves the centre of Croydon more readily than does East Croydon. Extending to East Croydon would have had the advantage of a link with Gatwick airport, but such a service would have been of limited value to commuters.
	The idea was hatched to introduce the scheme, which lacked a substantial backer for many years and was little more than a hope or aspiration, rather than an achievable objective. Fortunately, that has changed over time, and we very much welcome the fact that the East London line's southern and northern extensions will proceed apace over the next few years.
	The London borough of Lewisham has the highest proportion of residents who work outside the borough, so its public transport links are crucial to the well-being of the area and its citizens. We have seen many improvements in recent years. The Docklands light railway extension was eventually continued across the river, from a rather strange terminus at Mudchute on the Isle of Dogs, largely because of the innovative and imaginative approach of the London borough of Lewisham. Modesty almost forbids me from saying that I was the chair of finance at the time. We identified a capital investment that we could make in concert with the Docklands light railway to bring it, via Greenwich and Deptford, to Lewisham. That was achieved a few years ago, improving the transport links considerably.
	We have also seen a substantial improvement in bus services since the advent of the Greater London authority, under the Mayor, Ken Livingstone, and the active intervention of Transport for London. The improvements in transport in London alone more than justify the creation of the GLA and Transport for London. My thanks go to the Mayor and the GLA for their determination to develop the East London line from what is at the moment—little more than a cross-river shuttle east of Tower Bridge—to a much more comprehensive service for south and east London, as part of the more ambitious and beneficial project that will become known as the London overground, stretching from Watford in the north-west to Croydon in the south-east.
	In the near future, my part of London will also benefit from the moving of the Eurostar channel tunnel rail link services from Waterloo to St. Pancras, because that will free up slots on another local rail line and will result in more services to Sydenham Hill and Penge East stations. Although those stations are not actually in my constituency, they are close enough to the boundary to be used by many of my constituents, so that will be a considerable benefit.
	The proposed extension of the East London lineto my constituency and the London borough of Lewisham more broadly—and to places further south—is welcomed almost unreservedly, but I have requested this debate because I have to use the word "almost". The extension has implications that are not as desirable as the extension itself. As we have some of the most congested commuter lines in the whole country, hon. Members will understand the concerns of my constituents.
	We also look forward to the as yet unannounced transfer of responsibility—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm it at some point, if not today—for the stations along the route of the extension from the train operating company, Southern, to Transport for London, with a subsequent programme of investment and improvement. In my constituency, that will involve Honor Oak, Forest Hill and Sydenham stations and, just outside it, Penge West, Anerley and Crystal Palace. We look forward to the improved standards of service and security for commuters that TFL provides for its stations, compared to the current operator.
	The increased choice and services for commuters are completely desirable, and my constituents look forward to enjoying them. The expansion of the Oyster card system, which is more convenient and cheaper for people travelling around London, will also be welcome, and it will be extended to the over-ground Network Rail services into London Bridge. The extension of the East London line will also mean that many people will be able to avoid using zone 1, as they will be able to travel around the centre of London, instead of having to go through it. That will produce savings not only of time but also of cost for many people. My journey to the Palace of Westminster takes me from Forest Hill station to London Bridge, where I change to the Jubilee line and travel to Westminster underground station. At a meeting with London Rail last Monday, I pointed out that when the new line is operating I will be able to take the East London line to the Canada Water interchange on the Jubilee line and travel through London Bridge to Westminster. London Rail confirmed that the cost would be the same for either journey, so that will be of benefit to people travelling from my constituency and around London more generally.
	The reason I asked for the debate relates to a question I tabled to the Secretary of State for Transport to ask
	"what assessment has he made of the effect on the Network Rail services into London Bridge of the extension of the East London Line in 2010."
	The answer from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris), stated:
	"The Department has worked closely with the East London Line (ELL) project team and with Network Rail to ensure that it will be possible to deliver satisfactory levels of service from south London to both London Bridge and to ELL destinations when ELL commences operations.
	The direct journey opportunities offered by the extended ELL services are expected to enable significant numbers of passengers to avoid the need to travel from south to east London via London Bridge, thus easing congestion at that busy station."—[ Official Report, 13 December 2006; Vol. 454, c. 1065-6W.]
	I accept the last part of my hon. Friend's answer, but unfortunately there was a degree of ambiguity about the rest of it, which is why I asked for the debate—I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for allowing it. There is substantial concern that services to London Bridge on the Southern franchise and north-bound services from London Bridge to Victoria on the loop line will be cut after, or even before, the East London line commences re-operation in 2010, because the Southern franchise expires in 2009 and specifications will have to be made before it is renewed either by Southern or another operator.
	My constituents are also concerned about some of the notions emanating from London Rail—the TFL body responsible for the London overground project and hence the East London line—in statements such as the following:
	"TFL is working in collaboration with Network Rail to develop the best possible solution for passengers using the rail network in South London. The plans...currently being assessed as part of Network Rail's South London Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS), which is due to go for public consultation in summer 2007. Therefore, the service patterns and details of the train services may be modified as a result of the RUS study."
	However, the document continues:
	"To enable the ELR services to operate, the current service frequency on the south London suburban network needs to be adapted. TfL, with Network Rail, have undertaken some timetabling work, which suggests that the best way to accommodate the ELR services is to reduce the current morning peak 8 trains per hour on the Sydenham route to London Bridge (via Forest Hill and Brockley) to 6 trains per hour in 2009...Passengers wishing to go to London Bridge, from West Croydon or Crystal Palace, will be able to change from the ELR on to the Jubilee Line at Canada Water station (with trains departing every 2-5 minutes towards Stratford in the east, and Stanmore in the west)."
	That last suggestion particularly concerns my constituents, because at present they have a direct service to London Bridge, which is, as I said, one of the busiest commuter routes in the country, so they do not regard the option of having to change to reach the same destination as a benefit.
	The current East London line will close at the end of this year for about two and a half years for the necessary works to be undertaken to facilitate the southern extension to Crystal Palace and West Croydon, utilising the existing Network Rail infrastructure. That will result in our part of south-east London appearing on the tube map for the first time. Hallelujah, say we all. However, there is widespread concern that when the new service commences in 2010, with eight trains an hour—four each to Crystal Palace and West Croydon—it will result in a reduction to the peak-hour services to London Bridge from Forest Hill and Sydenham stations, both of which are in my constituency. They are already extremely busy. Even boarding some of trains—let alone any hope of getting a seat—is difficult, if not impossible. I can attest to that, because I started commuting on the line way back in 1963. Although it is accepted that the East London line services will provide greater choice for passengers, the principal demand is for the Southern train services to London Bridge, and that will remain the case for the foreseeable future.
	I have spoken to Network Rail's utilisation strategy team, Southern trains, Transport for London and London Rail, but doubt still remains over the levelof service post-2010. There is in existence something called a proving timetable, which was used to demonstrate the case for the East London line extension, but which would seem to indicate reductions in frequency during peak times. I understand fully that the final decisions are some way off and that thereare a number of variables still to be resolved, but itis the strong feeling locally—I share it—that if the introduction of eight trains an hour on the East London line service causes any reduction in the current services to and from London Bridge via New Cross Gate, or the southbound service from London Bridge to Victoria, it would be far preferable for the East London line frequency to be reduced, at least initially. I fully understand that people's travel patterns may change when they have different choices, but, at the outset, the travel patterns that we have in our part of the world are set and people will not welcome a reduction in those services to facilitate a new service that, as yet, is of no direct benefit to them.
	I have been advised by some of those involved that it should be possible to accommodate all the existing services and the extension of the East London line, although London Rail appears to be resisting that. I hope that my hon. Friend can clarify the matter and make it plain that we welcome the arrival of the extended East London line, provided that it is in addition to the existing services and not at the expense of some of them.
	In conclusion, I congratulate the Sydenham Society, the Forest Hill Society, the Tewkesbury Lodge Estate residents' association and other community groups that have put a lot of work into trying to analyse precisely what we can expect in our part of the world after 2010. I hope that my hon. Friend can provide reassurance that the immense benefit of the new East London line will not be diluted by reductions to other services.

Gillian Merron: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Jim Dowd) on securing the debate and providing an opportunity for the House to discuss the East London line and, in particular, the impacts of the proposed extension and enhancement to services south of New Cross Gate. I thank him for bringing these issues to my attention on behalf of his constituents in his characteristically good-natured and well-informed style. I echo the comments that he rightly made in congratulating the many community groups in his constituency that have contributed so well and in such a thorough and welcome manner.
	I know that my hon. Friend takes a keen interest in this matter, given that the services pass through Sydenham and Forest Hill, which are important areas in his constituency, and I know that the matter will be of great concern to his constituents. I hope that it will be helpful to my hon. Friend and his constituents if I set out a bit of the background and some details of the situation. The East London line project effectively links the rail networks north and south of the river to the east of the city and will for the first time in a number of years provide regular and fast journeys between north, east and south London, with services between Dalston in the north and West Croydon and Crystal Palace in the south. The East London line will also play a significant role in the regeneration of east London, particularly in the Dalston and Shoreditch areas. I am sure that the House will join me in welcoming that.
	It is important to note that significant progress has been made: powers were granted several years ago; new trains have been ordered; work on the upgrading of some existing structures and so on has already been completed; and the main works contract has been let, with works due to start in earnest later this year. Some £900 million is being spent on infrastructure for the East London line and a further £223 million on new trains for the east and north London line.
	When the new service opens in 2010, four trains per hour will operate between Crystal Palace and Dalston, between New Cross and Dalston and between West Croydon and Dalston. Eventually, with the planned upgrade of the North London line, eight trains per hour will do the extended run up to Highbury and Islington. That will mean 12 trains per hour on the core route between Surrey Quays and Dalston. South of New Cross Gate, eight East London line trains per hour will operate seven days a week.
	The improvements will give passengers a better journey and will enhance the economic competitiveness of London. They will facilitate easier orbital journeys in London, because the central area will be avoided, and will provide better transport links for my hon. Friend's constituents and others.
	The Government, like my hon. Friend, fully support the work of the Mayor of London and Transport for London in taking forward this project. We believe that it will bring significant benefits to transport in south and east London. Indeed, without the record level of resource given to TFL by this Government to invest in London's transport network, this project would not have been possible. As with all projects of this scale, changes are required in order to implement it. I recognise that some of the changes impact on my hon. Friend's constituents, and I understand and appreciate why they cause concern.
	The railway south of New Cross Gate is heavily used by existing Southern services into London Bridge, and we recognise that crowding is an issue on these trains at peak times. From 2010, south of New Cross Gate, a number of changes to national rail services are likelyto be required to facilitate the delivery of the East London line. That is because track capacity on the route is limited, especially at key locations such as London Bridge, Croydon and Norwood Junction.
	As my hon. Friend is aware, the timetable that has been developed is a concept timetable: a basic draft that can be developed and amended. I hope that that will be of interest and reassurance to his constituents. The Department for Transport, TFL and Network Rail have been working together to develop this concept timetable that facilitates these changes with minimum impact on existing services. I assure him that no final decisions have been taken about the timetable that will eventually operate, and I hope that that reassurance will be relayed to his constituents.
	The proposed changes will see the peak services to London Bridge reduced from eight to six trains per hour, but that service will be supplemented by an additional eight East London line trains per hour on the core section between Sydenham and New Cross Gate, giving a total of 14 trains per hour northbound in the morning peak. I stress that six trains per hour is not the maximum number in respect of the route, because further enhancements can be delivered over and above what is proposed. However, given the key constraints at London Bridge and Croydon, and the significant planned enhancements on this route, I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that we also need to examine whether enhancements to other corridors can be facilitated.
	It is also clear that a significant number of passengers using this corridor interchange with the Jubilee line at London Bridge to go to the west end or Canary Wharf. They will have a greater range of interchanges available to them, with a choice of using either London Bridge or Canada Water—that has been recognised by my hon. Friend in his own travel patterns. The average journey time for passengers going from Forest Hill to Canary Wharf will be reduced by eight minutes.
	I am aware that capacity on the route has been a key concern. It is true to say that East London line trains are shorter than those on the existing services. However, when measurements are taken in terms of available carriages, some 18 per cent. more will be operating on the route from 2010. It is also worth noting that it is planned that the six London Bridge services will all start from the Croydon area, whereas current services start significantly further away. That will result in the services carrying significantly fewer of passengers by the time they reach Sydenham, so more capacity will be available.
	I emphasise that I am sympathetic to the fact that the changes will have an impact on some individuals, but I stress again that no final decision has been taken. The timetable details are far from finalised, the access option has not been agreed by the regulator, and the franchise specification for the replacement Southern franchise is yet to be developed. Further changes are possible and, indeed, they are likely to reflect changes in demand.

Jim Dowd: I am sorry for interrupting my hon. Friend, but I want to make sure that I understand exactly what she is saying. She says that no final decisions have been taken and that the concept timetable, as she calls it, has no more status thanthat. However, she seems to be talking about the six services into London Bridge as a given fact. It is that proposition, given that people have eight services an hour at peak times at the moment, that is causing the greatest concern.

Gillian Merron: I understand the point that my hon. Friend presses. I can confirm that I will ensure thatour debate is drawn to the attention of those whoare responsible for developing the final plans, and Iwill make sure that that point is emphasised as developments continue. We want a better service, but I emphasise to my hon. Friend that change means just that. I want us to get to a point at which we have a better service.
	It might assist my hon. Friend if I make the point that the Government will this summer publish the high level output specification for the railway, which will detail the outputs that Government want to buy from the railway between 2009 and 2014. I can tell him that as part of that process, we are actively looking at several schemes to enhance capacity, such as by train lengthening on routes in south London. We will make final decisions on the defined outputs later this summer.
	My hon. Friend asked a question about the transfer of stations. I can confirm that we are discussing the possible transfer of stations south of New Cross Gate, although we have not reached an agreement. The transfer would be made to the Transport for London concessionaire.
	We recognise that the implementation of the East London line extension is likely to necessitate some changes to existing train services to accommodate the proposed new services. In general, we believe that the revised services will offer better transport services for south and east London, with improved connectivity to other parts of the city and new and more frequent trains. Our view is that a satisfactory solution can be developed for East London line and national rail services. That might involve some compromises, but we believe that the benefits of the project far outweigh the downside of the changes required. I reassure my hon. Friend and his constituents that the final timetable has not yet been defined. As I said earlier, we will seriously consider the concerns of his constituents as we take forward the development of the South Central franchise in due course.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Three o'clock.